Ritter dismisses Powell report (PERVERT ALERT)WITH POSTING BOARD

japantoday ^ | 2/6/2003 | japantoday

[TLBSHOW]

Ritter dismisses Powell

TOKYO — Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter on Thursday dismissed U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's allegation before the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction as "unsubstantiated" and based only on "circumstantial evidence."

"There's nothing here that's conclusive proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and outspoken critic of Washington's policy on Iraq who participated in U.N. weapons inspections there from 1991 to 1998, told Kyodo News in an interview.

"Everything in here is circumstantial, everything in here mirrors the kind of allegations the U.S. has made in the past in regard to Iraq's weapons program," he said.

Powell on Wednesday presented what he described as "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Iraq has been deceiving U.N. arms inspectors and hiding banned weapons. He played intercepted telephone conversations between Iraqi officials and showed satellite photos as part of the U.S. drive to convince the world of the need to disarm Iraq, by military force if necessary.

"He just hits you, hits you, hits you with circumstantial evidence, and he confuses people — and he lied, he lied to people, he misled people," Ritter said of Powell.

Ritter argued that the United States is giving weapons inspectors too little time to do their job.

He said many things in Powell's presentation should be properly investigated, such as a Nov 26 communications intercept in which two senior Iraqi military officers were overheard talking about the need to hide from U.N. weapons inspectors a "modified vehicle" made by an Iraqi company that Powell said is "well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity."

"What vehicle? I mean, obviously Colin Powell's concerned, he presented it, so let's find out what the vehicle is — but let's not bomb Iraq based upon that," Ritter said.

Ritter also questioned the veracity of Powell's allegation that Iraq still possesses vast amounts of anthrax and described as irrelevant his repeated references to dry powder anthrax contained in envelopes and sent through the U.S. postal system in the fall of 2001, which killed two people and created a national panic.

"What anthrax is he talking about?" he said, adding that Iraq is only known to have produced liquid bulk anthrax, which has a shelf life of only three years.

He said the last known batch of liquid bulk anthrax was produced in 1991 at a state-owned factory blown up in 1996.

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

Ritter accused Powell of engaging in "classic bait-and-switch" in his U.N. presentation, catching his listeners' attention with one piece of information and then putting up an irrelevant photograph "to make them think the two are the same when they're not."

"I mean, the photographs are real but what do the photographs show," he said. "The Powell presentation is not evidence...It's a very confusing presentation. What does it mean? What does it represent? How does it all link up? It doesn't link up."

"Iraq, anthrax, vial, dry powder — what connection do they have? None," he said.

Ritter termed a "fabrication" Powell's assertion that Iraq may have 18 trucks from which it can produce biological agents such as anthrax or botulinum toxin, and noted that U.N. inspectors who followed up on such U.S. intelligence based on defectors' testimony were only able to find two trucks used for testing food.

"They had nothing to do with biological laboratories. That's what (U.N. chief inspector) Hans Blix says. He says, 'There's no mobile lab."'

"You know who came up with the idea of mobile trucks? The inspectors...We sat back one day and said, 'If we were the Iraqis, how would we hide biological production? We'd put them on trucks,"' Ritter said.

"So we designed it and we went out looking for them. But the problem is, you look for something that you have no evidence exists, but by postulating the existence you create the perception of existence. Now we look for trucks...and we don't find them," he said.

In his presentation, Powell spoke of the futility of trying to find the trucks in question among the thousands that travel Iraqi roads daily without Baghdad voluntarily surrendering the information.

Ritter, however, said Powell was merely trying to create an impression that U.N. inspections could never work.

"You can never expect the inspectors to find these 18 trucks," he said, because "these trucks don't exist."

Defectors' reports, he said, could be misleading, especially those coming from people associated with the opposition Iraqi National Congress, who he said could have been "pre-briefed in advance to tell lies."

"Are these legitimate defectors or are they deliberately out there falsifying testimony? I don't know. What I do know is I'm not willing to put American lives on the line based on the testimony from an Iraqi defector. I want something a little bit more solid than that," Ritter said.

But he stressed he is not arguing that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction — merely that the U.N. inspectors should be given sufficient time to do their job in Iraq and make a final determination based on solid evidence. (Kyodo News)

Japan Today Discussion Post Your Opinion!

Japan Today Discussion Post Your Opinion!

34 Total Messages (Click here to show all) 15 Messages Shown (Scroll down for most recent)

Jpns Americanwoman (Feb 7 2003 - 01:55)

It's a very interesting interview. It does not even sound like the present-day Ritter.

Take special note of Ritter's answer to the question: "How would you put pressure on Iraq without sanctions?"

What Ritter pretty much said was that sanctions weren't working, inspections weren't working and the only thing that would work was force.

AMW JPNsucks (Feb 7 2003 - 02:19)

to WOW! thanks for the link

www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00337.html

that is really something . I haven't read it all yet it is quite long , but from what I've read so far it is more than obvious that someone has gotten to this guy Since that interview took place .

You know the first time I saw Scott Ritter on TV was shortly after the U.S. started to focus its attention on Iraq . And when I first listened to him he was saying things that I kind of wanted to believe .

Things like "Iraq has no chemical weapons " Iraq has no affiliation with terrorists " and on and on .

But after I saw him a few dozen times on dozens of different news stations I started to notice that this man never had anything negative to say about Iraq . It was at that point I started to wonder if this guy was for real or not . IE . Was someone paying him for what he was saying .

Then I heard about the $400,000.00 he got for making that film and everything fell into place .

This guy is just trying to make money at America's expense . One of the most worthless types of people on the planet . To sacrifice your country for a few bucks is truly disgusting to me .

JPNs...

Jpns Americanwoman (Feb 7 2003 - 02:42)

I would not be surprised if Ritter is guilty of something akin to treason. There's no telling what kind of intelligence info or secrets that he let the Iraqis in on.

Maybe the Iraqis are paying him and/or maybe they are blackmailing him. Who knows.

But....he is a lying snake and a pervert, too.

"But....he is a lying snake and a pervert, too." FoetusFajitas (Feb 7 2003 - 02:54)

Hey... I'm a pervert, and I resent being associated with Ritter.

Foetus PMW (Feb 7 2003 - 05:05)

Exception noted.

Ritter dismisses Powell report arjun (Feb 7 2003 - 06:21)

People like AW, PMW, DPogo etc. are a minority. Trying to defame Ritter and any other person who stands in their way of the realization of their fantasy :

Murder of innocent people, Iraqis, in this case.

Ritter tbob38 (Feb 7 2003 - 11:07)

Ritter is acting a little like someone who is being blackmailed. Iraqi intelligence?

arjun Americanwoman (Feb 7 2003 - 11:13)

If you read the interview that I sited, that Ritter did right after he came back from inspections in Iraq in 1998 and compare it to what he's saying now, you would know that he was either lying then or he's lying now.

But.....you won't bother, because you're not interested in finding out the truth.

test ganeshpuri89 (Feb 7 2003 - 15:55)

test

Americanwoman, sk (Feb 7 2003 - 17:00)

I don't know if you saw my post on the other thread but just in case you haven't, here it is. It was in response to Shimanji's comment about those 10 E European countries who support the US. Since your opinion is the same as his, I think you should read this...

find quite amusing that you are so excited about "Ten more Eastern European countries gave their support for the American position on Iraq following Powell's presentiation yesterday."

Um, you DO realize that these countries are Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Macedonia and Albania, right? So, if you realize that, then I am sure that you also probably realize that this support does not really mean much. Most of these are little pathetic countries, whose opinions don't really matter that much to the rest of the world. Macedonia and Albania - these are just big villages and their support is as valuable as that of aboriginals (spelling?) in Australia. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are three countries who are looking for funds to jump-start their paralyzed economies. Their opnions certainly do not reflect those of Europe or the rest of the world. They have no backbone. Slovenia and Slovakia should wait for another 5-7 years before their opnions matter (they are like high-school graduates, who not quite mature enough just yet). That only leaves two countries, who have presence on the world stage - Romania and Bulgaria. And I wouldn't bet my life on their unconditional support.

So, since you are keeping score, even though then numbers of the US supporters are growing, these numbers really don't carry much weight.

Americanwoman, sk (Feb 7 2003 - 17:09)

You think that we cannot trust Ritter because of the sex allegations but then you give us the link to this interview where he talks negatively about Iraq. So, when he shares the US Govt point of view he is a trustworthy man, right? But then, when he speaks again a few years later and disagrees with Powell's evidence he is all of a sudden a lying pervert. Interesting thining...

sk Americanwoman (Feb 7 2003 - 23:08)

In the last 6 months Ritter has said that: a. Most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed and that Iraq no longer has much in the way of weapons b. Iraq is not a danger to the world or to the US c. The US should not use military action against Iraq d. Bush should be impeached for planning to attack Iraq

All of those things directly contradict what he said in the 1998 interview and they are also in contradiction to what he told Congress in 1998.

If you suddenly gained the intellectual ability to read and comprehend what Ritter has said in the past and what he's recently said in interviews, you would know that your posts make you look like a complete fool.

I said that Ritter was a liar and a traitor months ago, before I even knew about the arrest. The arrest really has nothing to do with what he's said about Iraq, but it does indicate that he has some severe personal/psychological problems.

Ritter's testimony Americanwoman (Feb 7 2003 - 23:52)

to Congress in 1998:

www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

Ahem.. Yoda's evil twin (Feb 8 2003 - 00:04)

More of my right-wing propaganda. The origional U.N. inspectors said that they and their mission were totally useless as their Iraqi hosts tracked them and spied on them constantly. They agreed that not only did they not achieve ANYTHING, they may have actually been harmful. You see, the questions that they asked gave the Iraqi scientists insights into what they were getting wrong. For example, "Do you Iraqi scientists have a such and such?" "Uh..no." Then he thinks to himself, "Hey! We need a such and such!" I saw this on the program "Frontline" a politically neutral show. Senor Ritter is a bitter, greedy little snot and his motivations are "suspicious" and highly suspect.

SK DTogo (Feb 8 2003 - 00:06)

"Most of these are little pathetic countries, whose opinions don't really matter that much to the rest of the world."

Whoa! If you're going to make such a disparaging comment, please specify that you're talking about France and Germany!

Post Your Opinion!

[The Great Satan]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

You sure about that, Scottie?

[chiefqc]

He can't see to well, he has visions of little girls dancing in his head.

[The Great Satan]

"Iraq, anthrax, vial, dry powder — what connection do they have? None," he said.

Of course not. No connection. Powell was just grandstanding. Right, Scottie?

[Paul Atreides]

Scott must really have something bad in his past for them to be able to blackmail him this much.

[Always Right]

Wonder why Ritter has to go to Japan to speak out. Could be Japan doesn't quite look down at Pedophiles as in the US, where they are considered the scum of scum.

[Lynn]

Powell's mistake was not holding up a bag of sugar ala SecDec William Cohen (USWorthless) when making the comparison on what a particular amount of anthrax could do...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

$400,000 payoff from Iraq. That's what we do know. there's probably more.

[lilylangtree]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Scott Ritter one of the inspectors that quit doing inspections in Iraq in the mid-90's because the then inspectors alleged that the Iraqis were carrying secret equipment (like computers, etc) out the backdoor as the inspectors were coming in the front door. Plus, Hussein and his henchmen were not forthcoming with information. It seems I read something similar to that statement. Then why is Ritter defending Hussein and denouncing the US' propoposed actions?

[cyncooper]

My! Ritter sounds positively desperate to propagate his message. Is it normal for a former UN Inspector to refuse to pause and even consider what Colin Powell presented the other day?

As if we needed more evidence that something ain't quite as it should be regarding Ritter's PRO-Iraq stance. And it is PRO, not just giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

I hope and pray he is made to account for himself...and soon.

[cyncooper]

Then why is Ritter defending Hussein and denouncing the US' propoposed actions?

Why, indeed.

And we can guess. Oh, yes we can.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

We should send Ritter back over there to inspect. Seriously. I think inspections could work if given time. All we have to do is tell him that the Anthrax is hidden in the pants of underage girls, and the game is up.

[gaucho]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

Maybe Ritter sent the Anthrax...

[Wil H]

"Colin Powell holds up a vial of dry powder anthrax and he makes allusions to the attack in the United States through the letters. That was U.S. government anthrax! It had nothing to do with Iraq," Ritter said.

What a MORON !

Does anyone think that was a vial of real anthrax? I bet it was talcum powder or flour. I'm sure Colin Powell has no wish to carry around lethal substances in his pocket for show and tell.

Ritter's conjecture that it was "US Anthrax" just shows what a whack job he is.

[cwb]

Yes...as I recall Iraq even accused him of being a CIA spy. He's done a complete 180 since 1998 when he actually accused the Clinton administration of thwarting his attempts...on 7 occassions, to do serious inspections of probable weapon sites. According to Ritter's own testimony, if I recall, he said that Iraq was capable of reconstituting their bio/chemical weapons program within 6 months...and their nuclear program within 3 years. He said Saddam was a threat. The guys obviously been turned.

[LiteKeeper]

"Who is that masked man?"

[showme_the_Glory]

He is a perverted traitor and should not be allowed back in this country. Let him stand with Saddam

[Redcloak]

Kinda of-topic, but, there are some particularly unsavory aspects of Japanese culture that Scottie would likely enjoy.

[tractorman]

What do Scott Ritter and K-Mart have in common?

They both have little kids pants half off.

[Tamzee]

This editorial discusses the $400,000... Scottie admitted this, no telling if he got other money that Saddam kept proof of and can reveal if Scottie doesn't back him up.
.
.
.
Scotty says Saddam very, very BAD...
Saddam gives Scotty half a million...
Scotty says Saddam very, very GOOD...

.
.
.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020918-239312.htm

EDITORIAL • September 18, 2002

The bizarre odyssey of Scott Ritter

If you're confused about which Scott Ritter statements you can now believe about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, you're not alone. The Ritter of today, who speaks before the Iraqi parliament denouncing President Bush's policies and asserting that Saddam poses no threat to American interests, used to be a tough-minded hawk when it came to Iraq.

When Mr. Ritter, a Gulf War veteran, resigned from the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) — the agency charged with ensuring Iraqi disarmament — in August 1998, he said his departure should serve as a "wake-up call" about the United Nation's abandonment of the goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In a blistering letter to UNSCOM chief Richard Butler, Mr. Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraqi mass-destruction weapons be destroyed. He also accused U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan of serving as a "sounding board" for Iraqi complaints aimed at impeding UNSCOM's work.

"Iraq is not disarming," Mr. Ritter said on Aug. 27, 1998. Baghdad's failure to do so "means that Iraq will, in effect, win the Gulf War."

In the weeks after these parting shots, he was severely criticized by the Clinton administration, in particular Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and publicly ridiculed by administration supporters on Capitol Hill like Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.

But, when it comes to Iraqi disarmament, by far the most critical event of the past four years occurred in October 1998, when Saddam effectively forced UNSCOM out. Instead of taking military action to make Saddam back down, the Clinton administration effectively acquiesced to pressure applied on his behalf from Russia, France and China to put UNSCOM out of business and install a much weaker disarmament apparatus in its place. But the Iraqis have refused to permit the new inspection teams to enter the country.

The bottom line? With inspectors having been barred from Iraq for close to four years, Saddam has faced no constraints on his ability to continue with his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. That's arguably the most fundamental thing that's changed since Mr. Ritter quit UNSCOM. How then can Mr. Ritter credibly appear before the Iraqi parliament as he did on Sept. 8 and declare that Iraq "is not a threat to its neighbors," and that Iraq's unaccounted-for weapons materiel "does not constitute a viable weapons capability?"

Mr. Ritter's assertions have, quite understandably, left former colleagues such as Mr. Butler and former UNSCOM inspector David Kay scratching their heads. Both men have essentially said that either Mr. Ritter was lying when he resigned four years ago, or he is lying now. Messrs. Butler and Kay are too gentlemanly to say it, but Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported last Nov. 19 that Saddam welcomed Mr. Ritter to Baghdad in July 2000 in order to produce a "documentary" film called "Shifting Sands," which Mr. Ritter says is aimed at "de-demonizing" Iraq. The film was financed with $400,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real-estate developer from Michigan whom Mr. Ritter admits is "openly sympathetic" with Saddam's regime. Mr. Khafaji, the Standard reported, accompanied Mr. Ritter as he filmed the documentary.

Some people have reached the obvious conclusion that the money may have effected his opinion. But others who are familiar with Mr. Ritter believe that his ferocious anger at U.S. and U.N. pusillanimity in 1998 has somehow been converted in his mind to defending Saddam. Whatever the explanation for his currently unsupportable assertions, it is a sad turn of events for a once admirable Marine.