WilliamPitt (10132 posts) Sep-02-02, 11:34 AM (ET) Reply to post #23
27. Ritter's words on the Iraqi agent accusation from the rough copy of our interview:
- - - - - PITT: What would you say to people who accuse you of being an Iraqi agent?
RITTER: It depends on how they say it. If they say that they've heard other people say it and are just repeating it, I'd say shame on you for not checking your facts. If these are people who are coming out and saying it themselves, I'll call them liars and say shame on them, too. How dare they call me an Iraqi agent? I wore the uniform of a Marine for twelve years. I went to war for my country. I serve my community today. I am serving my country today in a number of ways. I have not taken a penny from Iraq. I am doing this, not out of sympathy for the people of Iraq, but because I love my country.
Basically, if they call me an Iraqi agent, they're accusing me of committing a crime against my country. I find that to be a horrible charge, the absolute worst charge you could make against someone, anyone, whether they're a former Marine or whether they were serving their country in another way, as a worker or an office manager or what have you. You can't make these charges lightly. The fact that I am sitting here talking to you right now, with so much attention being put on me by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations, speaks volumes as to just how clean I've been. Shame on them. These are baseless charges being brought by people who are unwilling to debate the message that I am trying to get out, so they take the cheap tactic of attacking the messenger.
PITT: Tell me about the issues you've had with the FBI.
RITTER: Well, I've been very frank with the FBI from day one. The first FBI investigation began back in 1991 after I married my wife. She's a former citizen of the Soviet Union, currently an American citizen, and they initiated something. It was dropped in 1992 after they found out that nothing was going on. It was of no concern to the national security of the United States, never came close to representing a violation of any law. Basically, a man meets a woman and falls in love, and that's it.
PITT: The collapse of the Heinz job must have been troubling, considering...
RITTER: Well, that just happened. Getting the UN job was great. The problem is, getting the UN job as an intelligence officer caused a lot of concern and consternation in the CIA because now they have an intelligence person they no longer control, engaged in a position of some influence. That's why the FBI was brought in, basically, as a vehicle of intimidation. It didn't work. I don't get intimidated. That went onto the back burner, not to emerge until 1996, when, because of the successful relationship I brokered between the United Nations and Israel, we at UNSCOM were starting to be able to gain a certain degree of independence from the CIA. We didn't need their intelligence as much as we had needed it in the past. This was of concern to people who followed the adage, "Information is Power." As long as the CIA was the sole provider of information, the CIA had the power and influence over the inspections. They could dictate where we went, when we went and how we went, just by controlling the intelligence.
By our going out to Israel and getting an extremely effective alternate source of information, the CIA lost its influence. The way they dealt with it was to fabricate charges that I was somehow spying for the state of Israel. They turned the FBI loose on me on that one. That's still an ongoing investigation to this date.
When I resigned and started speaking out against American policy in Iraq, a third investigation was initiated. I was made aware of it when I decided to make a documentary film in Iraq called 'On Shifting Sands.'. I was now being investigated as an agent of Iraq.
PITT: That is actually the crux of the Iraqi agent accusation, that you took money from Iraq, some $400,000, to make this film.
RITTER: To make the movie, I formed a film production company and sought investors. Because of the controversial nature of the film, i.e. actually telling the truth in a manner that would irritate the Clinton administration to a tremendous degree, not to many people wanted to back this. No traditional outlet for documentary films – PBS, Frontline, CNN, etc., wanted to come forward and put money up to back this idea. An American citizen – and I'll emphasize that point – an American citizen of Iraqi origin named Shakir Alkafajii, who runs businesses in Detriot, was willing to put up $400,000 of his own money.
If you go and check out Frontline, and ask them what their budget is for an hour-and-a-half feature documentary of the highest quality, you'll find that it exceeds $400,000. $400,000 is not an inordinate amount of money, and it didn't come to me. I wasn't paid $400,000.
PITT: It went to the production company.
RITTER: It went to the production company, and the production of the film actually wound up costing around $486,000. $56,000 came out of my pocket, $30,000 is still owed to another investor. The concept of me making money off this movie is about as lunatic as possible, but people don't want to delve into the facts of the matter. I made a great film – those who criticize the film have never seen it, and those who have seen it say it is the best documentary film on Iraq they've ever seen. It's also a pretty good piece of filmmaking. But people don't want to deal with the message, so they go after the messenger, and this whole issue of the money comes up.
I worked with the FBI on this. I said, if you've got concerns, let's talk about it. Their concerns were a quid pro quo arrangement between the Iraqi government and Shakir Alkafajii. By supporting my film, he would get some sort of favorable relationship. I said, if you ever find out that this is the case, let me know and I will terminate the film. If you ever find out that the Iraqi government funneled this money to the film through him, let me know. If they found any dirt on the money, the film would be over. Not only did they fail to find any dirt on the money, but after the film was over and I showed it to them, they said it was pretty darned good.
I'm proud of the movie, and I'm confident that there are no issues that attack the integrity of this film. Again, shame on those who say otherwise because they haven't taken the time to watch the film, and they just have not familiarized themselves with the facts of the matter. It is irresponsible conjecture on their part, conjecture that is so easily laid to rest, but that's not what they want. They've created this mythology that somehow I took $400,000 from the Iraqi government. Too bad. I didn't. I will stick with the integrity of the film and the message that the film portrays. Hopefully people who are interested in the truth will seek the film out.