Admit your lies: Former UN inspector tells Bush, Blair (Scott Ritter Alert)

Hindustan Times ^ | 06/06/2003

[Bayou City]

Admit your lies: Former UN inspector tells Bush, Blair

Agence France-Presse
Geneva, June 6

The United States and Britain should admit they lied when claiming that the ousted Baghdad regime had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Scott Ritter, a former UN senior weapons inspector in Iraq, said in an interview published in Geneva on Friday.

Ritter, speaking to the Swiss daily Le Temps, called on US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to "have the courage to be held responsible" for telling lies to the public into backing the conflict.

An outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the conflict, the ex-Marine said the two leaders should "explain frankly and honestly why they went to war".

They should "admit their lies", he said.

Ritter's comments were published in French.

"If this is a noble crusade to liberate the world from a crazy dictator, admit it," he said.

But, Ritter added, Saddam Hussein could not have destroyed a possible arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) "without leaving traces... (US Secretary of Defence) Donald Rumsfeld has furnished no proof of their supposed destruction, just as he has never furnished the slightest proof of their existence".

Ritter, a former intelligence officer in the US Marines once dubbed a "cowboy" by UN officials for what they called his intrusive inspection procedures, headed up the inspections team in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

He resigned in August 1998, citing a lack of UN and US support for his tough disarmament methods, which rattled the Iraqis.

In his "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All", Ritter slammed Bush's policy of regime change as having corrupted the inspection process in Iraq.

He also dismissed US intelligence information purporting to show the existence of WMDs, saying doubt would now be cast upon any further declarations made by the US president.

"(Bush) says that Iran has weapons of mass destruction. On the basis of what information? And what about Syria, or North Korea?" he told the paper.

[Bayou City]

Here is Scott Ritter running his mouth again...I'd like to know who pays him for this BS...

[FairOpinion]

Why is the media publishing anything Ritter says, that's what I'd like to know.

OR if they talk to him, why don't they ask him about his prediction that the US will lose the Iraq war?

[OREALLY]

Ritter the pedophile should be charged with treason !

[Cate]

I thought we deported Scott Ritter to Iraq. Hmm... I must be mistaken.. Ok, its something we should be doing real soon. One way ticket.....

[hole_n_one]

[Bayou City]

Why is the media publishing anything Ritter says, that's what I'd like to know.

This was published in Europe, written in French. I picked it up on a Indian website.

[oyez]

The media is wetting itself over the idea that they found another Watergate.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Ritter stuff isn't even amusing anymore.

[technomage]

Unfortunately the intensity of these types of reports and media accusations will continue to grow. Unlike many on this site, I believe if our intelligence was faulty and/or we do not find the actual WMD's (not the mobile labs, missiles, etc) this thing will be blown up by the world wide press into a gigantic problem of historic proportions for Bush.

That being said, Bush has had a habit of taking his time to confront, and destroy, those that attack him. Sometimes he waits too long, in my humble opinion. But, it seems to work.

I believe Bush and Blair already have the proof, bonafide, hard proof that no one can dispute. We may also have proof where the components and raw materials came from (give you three guesses).

So, I believe we will have to put up with this rising tide from within and without until Bush decides the time is right.

I pray I am right!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

He keeps coming back, like a bad penny.

[FairOpinion]

From Ritter's Testimony in front of the Senate in Sept. 1998.


RITTER: "Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace"

MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, my job as the chief of the Concealment and Investigations Unit with the Special Commission was to expose the mechanisms used by Iraq to hide their retained weapons capabilities from discovery by United Nations weapons inspection teams. Therefore, my job was to expose this concealment mechanism, break through this concealment mechanism, and get to the retained capability. So the discoveries that the team that I was in charge of and the Special Commission as a whole were on the verge of making and, indeed, have made in the past include defining with certainty what this concealment mechanism was and closing in on the materials that this concealment mechanism were (sic) retaining.

MR. RITTER: My understanding of the -- first of all, I'd need to make clear that the issue of the discovery of weaponized VX in Iraq was done by another team, a team that I was not directly associated with. I'm familiar with their work. It's a very important discovery. It's one that shows clearly that, A, Iraq has not disarmed, and they've lied across the board about not just VX, but once we get to the bottom of the VX issue, we'll find it exposes additional lies, which cause concern for a number weapons issues. When that issue became public in June of 1998, I believe that the administration was forced to endorse the findings that indeed there was weaponized VX in Iraq today, and as such, they expressed support for continued inspection operations in Iraq to disclose not only the VX but all aspects of Iraq's retained weapons capabilities.

MR. RITTER: Sir, that's a question that Iraq keeps posing to the Special Commission: how much longer will this go on? The fact of the matter is that since April 1991 under the direct orders and direction of the President of Iraq the government of Iraq has lied to the Special Commission about the totality of its holdings. We cannot conduct verification of Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions without an understanding of what there was to begin with. Iraq not only lied to us in April 1991. In the summer of 1991 they conducted what they call unilateral destruction: that is, they disposed of certain materials without the presence of weapons inspectors and then destroyed the records of this alleged destruction. They also diverted certain materials to the presidential security forces. This has confused an already confusing situation. We do not know the totality of what Iraq has. What we do know is that the declarations they have made to the Special Commission to date are false. And the explanations that they give to us about how they disposed of weapons are wrong. And therefore we know we have a job to do. How much longer will it take? I can say this, and I'll echo the words of the executive chairman. If Iraq gave us today a full and final accounting of all of its weapons of mass destruction -- programs and retained weapons capabilities -- our job would be over very quickly. But because we don't have such an accounting, our job has become a mission of discovery. We must go forth and find these weapons that Iraq is hiding. And that could go on a very long time, especially given the level of Iraqi obstruction today.

MR. RITTER: There is no question that Saddam Hussein is the problem here. All decisions pertaining to his retention of weapons of mass destruction in direct disobedience of international law, are made by him and him alone. And he is the only one who can make the decision to comply with Security Council resolution. So I would agree with you that Saddam Hussein is the problem. How you resolve the problem of Saddam Hussein is an issue that's better left to people whose responsibility that is.


MR. RITTER: Senator, as you correctly stated, this issue is, indeed, part and parcel of the war that was fought in 1991, a war in which I participated in and a war in which hundreds of Americans lost their lives to achieve a specific aim: that was the liberation of Kuwait. In April of 1991 as part of the cease-fire resolution the Security Council added preconditions to termination of conflict. These preconditions were that Iraq must disarm, be rid of its weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, the Security Council set forth a marker on the table, saying "We are taking a collective decision to play a role in nonproliferation and disarmament activities in the world." And the United States in supporting that said this is a good role for the Security Council to do.

What we have today is two things. One, the cease-fire resolution is being violated on a continual basis by Iraq. And if we do not take action to turn this around, we will have, in fact, lost the gulf war. We will have, in fact, dishonored those Americans who died in the gulf war and those Americans who paid a heavy price, personal or physical, through the conduct of the gulf war. But even worse, Saddam Hussein will have disgraced the body of the Security Council.


MR. RITTER: It's a question of how he chooses to acquire enriched uranium, either through indigenous enrichment or through procurement from abroad. If it's indigenous, it would take some time because the IAEA has effectively dismantled the internal enrichment -- but they have not dismantled the weaponization program per se.

SEN. MCCAIN: So what period of time are you talking about, roughly?


MR. RITTER: For a total reconstruction, it would be a period of several years to reconstruct enrichment capability. Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the biological and chemical?

MR. RITTER: That's a much less time frame. I believe within a period of six months Iraq could reconstitute its biological-weapons and chemical-weapons capability.


SEN. INHOFE: Do you think, in your evaluation of the type of person that Saddam Hussein is, that he would hesitate in any way from using a weapon of mass destruction and delivering it to the United States, if he had the capability?

MR. RITTER: My experience with the Iraqi government is that it is a ruthless government and that it would carry out such a task if that was the decision of the president of Iraq.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ritter, you stated in a Washington Post article, at least you were quoted as saying, "I know the Iraqis are concealing weapons and they are violating sanctions -- that they are doing their best to, for instance, covertly procure proscribed capabilities." Let me ask, in the oil-for-food program, do you have evidence that they have used that program for procurement activities?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir. Again, in accordance with my desire to protect the sources and methods, I can't get into very many details on this, but the Special Commission and the United States government have specific intelligence information which shows that Iraq uses the oil- for-food program to -- as a front to facilitate the acquisition of either dual-use or proscribed material.





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

[FairOpinion]

"written in French"

I guess Chirac is taking Ritter under his wings. Well, he can stay there.

[holden]

"If this is a noble crusade to liberate the world from a crazy dictator, admit it,"

Yup. It was that.

Being in the most powerful position in the world, if W were of a mind to prevaricate regarding the evidence and his representation of it to all the world, he surely could have had the CIA or other paid operatives "throw down" a "smoking gun."

That this hasn't happened is further evidence toward W's integrity.

But, there have been WMD's in Iraq, as every authoritative body--even the French government--that's considered the question has concluded. House Democrats, through the person of their leader, Pelosi, were claiming on the eve of the war that we shouldn't provoke Saddamn because he was liable to use WMD's against our troops, and the result of that would be too awful to contemplate.

Democrats have jumped to the other side of the fence solely as a manufactured-from-thin-air attack on their chief antagonist, W. In doing so, they're being as transparent as Saran Wrap to the hugh majority of thinking Americans, but they're just using their media surrogates to pump their thinking points to unthinking Americans.

"If a government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can usually count on Paul's support" (said someone wiser than I).

"If a government pays and blackmails a paedophile like Scottie, it can be assured of Scotties's support." HF

HF

[LurkerNoMore!]

Exactly.

[MJY1288]

Scott Ritter will be welcomed by the left wing press, It doesn't mean a thing to them that this guy gave sworn testimony that completely contradicts his claims of today, and the only thing that has changed since he gave his sworn testimony in 1998 and up until today is he was paida lot of money by one of Saddam's friends to produce a movie that would make Al-Jazeera proud.

My question for Scott would be, Why would one of Saddam's U.S. connections pick an ex-marine and former U.N. Weapons inspectors without a shred of film production experience to produce a movie that probably would never be seen by anyone but maybe a few terrorist?

My guess is that the movie was just a front and Scott Ritter loves the spotlight and by playing spook for Saddam he stir up a bunch of controversy and get back into the spotlight. But once he and his Russian Wife were investigated he turned on his country and became loyal to Saddam.

The Man should be strung up IMHO, He is not only a danger to our intelligence community and our national security for what he knows, but he also is a danger to the community because he is a pediphile.

[MJY1288]

Very good points, The left will look like the fools they are once these weapons are found, and they will be.

[Jorge]

I can't wait for them to find evidence of WMDs or learn what happened to them to once again make a fool out of Scott Ritter.

This is the man who claimed America would lose the war on Iraq and would run with from Iraq with it's tail between it's legs.
Why does anybody listen to what this loser says?

[FairOpinion]

MR. RITTER: They're -- Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.


From Ritter's testimony in front of the US Senate in Sept. 1998.

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

[FairOpinion]

ore from Ritter's testimony in front of the US Senate in 1998:

MR. RITTER: It's a question of how he chooses to acquire enriched uranium, either through indigenous enrichment or through procurement from abroad. If it's indigenous, it would take some time because the IAEA has effectively dismantled the internal enrichment -- but they have not dismantled the weaponization program per se.

SEN. MCCAIN: So what period of time are you talking about, roughly?

MR. RITTER: For a total reconstruction, it would be a period of several years to reconstruct enrichment capability. Yes, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the biological and chemical?

MR. RITTER: That's a much less time frame. I believe within a period of six months Iraq could reconstitute its biological-weapons and chemical-weapons capability.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the missiles to deliver them?

MR. RITTER: Within a period of six months. We know in fact that Iraq has a plan to have a breakout scenario for reconstitution of long-range ballistic missiles within six months of the "go" signal from the president of Iraq.

SEN. MCCAIN: So it is your opinion that if these inspections are further emasculated, then within a six-month period of time, Saddam Hussein would have the capability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

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

[MJY1288]

"This is the man who claimed America would lose the war on Iraq and would run with from Iraq with it's tail between it's legs."

When I heard him say that, the first thing I thought was, for his own safety, he better never find himself alone with one of his former Marines. That statement boiled my blood and I'm not sure I wouldn't want to frag his a$$ myself, if I got the chance to do so.