Bush: Iraq "enemy until proven otherwise"

[Blalron]

What kind of nonsense is this? Bush and his regime is becoming more Orwellian by the day. Everything is becoming the opposite of common sense. We're treating those "enemy combatants" as guilty until proven innocent also.

Is anyone else bothered by using unamerican methods to defend our American way of life?

Coming soon, more slogans from Bush:

War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[SuaSponte]

What's the problem with the logic?

Sua

[Blalron]

What's the problem with the logic?

We need evidence that another country is a threat before sending thousands of young men in the prime of their life off to some desert to get shot at.

[SuaSponte]

But that's not what you were talking about in your OP. You equated Bush's comment with doublespeak.

Where we've recently fought a war with Iraq, where Iraq has violated the terms of the agreement to end the war, and where Iraq routinely shoots at American planes, Bush has ample reason to make his statement.

What you're talking about is what should be done about that. Completely different issue.

Sua

[Sparc]

We need evidence that another country is a threat But that's been proven Blalron...

Until Iraq shows some bettering, Iraq remains an enemy to the universal principles of the Free World, hence the US amongst other nations.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with Bush' strategies to deal with this threat.

Sorry, but I think you have to have another go at this one.

Sparc

[Sparc]

Ha ha ha ha... double posts in two threads after the other, Sua. I guess that puts us at one equal since I beat you to it in the other one.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Sparc
I guess that puts us at one equal

Listen you dang furriner, here in 'Merica we say "one even."

:p

Sua

Thankful that Sparc is grading us on speed of response rather than quality.

[SPOOFE]

We need evidence that another country is a threat before sending thousands of young men in the prime of their life off to some desert to get shot at.
Pray tell, what would you consider evidence? If Iraq invaded or threatened a neighboring country? If they routinely tried to counter the restrictions placed on them following such an invasion?

[Lord Ashtar]

How about the fact that Saddam Hussein is attempting to build atomic (or nuclear, whichever is more destructful) weapons?

What about the fact that he has said, "We will crush your skulls beneath our feet, and you will swim in your own blood."

If nothing else, don't you just kind of want this guy dead so you can play your Playstation 2 and eat Jello Pudding Pops in peace?

[El_Kabong]

Until Iraq shows some bettering, Iraq remains an enemy to the universal principles of the Free World, hence the US amongst other nations.

"Universal Principles of the Free World" sounds like a great name for a pamphlet: almost Jeffersonian in style. I'm afraid, though, that I'm not as familiar as I should be with this standard set of Universal Principles that we all should know. A bit of help would be appreciated.

Re: the OP, I can't (yet) agree that the recent rhetoric about Iraq has Orwellian overtones (much closer in spirit is Robert Mugabe's demonizing of white farmers while his nation starves, IMO). I do think however, that legitimate questions can be raised about the path the administration is taking.

Here are some of the questions that I would ask of the administration if I had the chance:

1. What is the specific, direct threat to the United States currently posed by Iraq?

2. Is the planned invasion intended to somehow make up for a perceived US failure to unseat Hussein at the end of the Gulf War?

3. Does the administration believe that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11/01 attacks? If so, what was the nature of Iraq's participation?

4. Why has the adminstration apparently had great difficulty convincing governments in the Middle East and Europe of the urgency of this mission to topple Saddam?

5. What entity does the US expect to govern Iraq after Hussein has been unseated, or does the US plan for a lengthy occupation under martial law?

I don't shed the tiniest tear for Saddam and his supporters. OTOH, I have no sense that the administration has clearly articulated its reasoning for embarking on the upcoming adventure in the Persian Gulf right now rather than any other time.

[Brutus]

Pretend that I am President for a bit, and I will answer. (You have a few minutes before my minions get to you, so relax and read!)

1) Aquisition of strategic WMD would destabilize the region (ie, Iraq invades Kuwait then threatens to wipe out Riyahd and Dubai if anyone tries to re-liberate them), and allow Saddam to attack the US using them, vis a vis terrorists. The latter is the greater of the two threats to America directly.

2) Nope.

3) Dunno yet; But it there is a strong possibility that Atta met with an Iraqi intel officer at least once.

4)Two different answers:

The Middle-East regimes see a free and democratic Iraq as a direct threat to their own dictatorships/oligarchies.

Europe has a bug up its collective ass about America. We invade, we are imperialists. We do not, then when Mssr.Hussien pulls his next wacky stunt, we are blamed for not having done something about it sooner. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

5. Combination. There will be some equivalent of martial law for some time, with phased-in democratic elections eventually determining leadership.

[Sparc]

Brutus as Dubya

Europe has a bug up its collective ass about America. We invade, we are imperialists. We do not, then when Mssr.Hussien pulls his next wacky stunt, we are blamed for not having done something about it sooner. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. One wouldn't expect anything more complex as analysis from you Mr. President, but would the Head of State be as kind as to explain this rather too simple of simpleton equations?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Blalron
We need evidence that another country is a threat

Originally posted by Sparc
But that's been proven Blalron...

Until Iraq shows some bettering, Iraq remains an enemy to the universal principles of the Free World, hence the US amongst other nations.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with Bush' strategies to deal with this threat.

Sorry, but I think you have to have another go at this one.

I don't know if you're referring to Kuwait, Saddam's war with Iran or the current state of play but, whichever it is, according to Scott Ritter (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2148) – former chief of the UN Inspectors in Iraq:

"This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."

<snip>

Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists."


C'mon chaps, face it; there will be no war - UN Inspectors back in by January. Who's taking bets ?

[El_Kabong]

1) Aquisition of strategic WMD would destabilize the region (ie, Iraq invades Kuwait then threatens to wipe out Riyahd and Dubai if anyone tries to re-liberate them), and allow Saddam to attack the US using them, vis a vis terrorists. The latter is the greater of the two threats to America directly.

Then, "Mr. President", please supply evidence of any kind that Saddam is currently hiding or producing WMD of any type, and better yet, that he has the intention to use them outside his own borders. I'd be happy to accept a satellite photo of a specific current plant where such weapons are produced and stored, backed by the testimony of any Iarqi dissident who can certify that he or she worked in that plant while such wepons were produced or stored, or as little as one authenticated Iraqi document that refers to the production and storage of WMD within the past five years.

Better yet would be some explanation as to how and why your administration believes that Saddam has concrete plans to use said weapons against US targets.

Chances are that such evidence will not be forthcoming before October. If and when the invasion takes place, however, IMO you had better come up with some sort of solid avidence of an active Iraqi WMD program, verifiable by an independent third party, if your administration wants to stay in office for a second term.

Personally, I would be more readily swayed by argument 1) than argument 2).

2) Nope.

OK, so it was perfectly alright to leave Saddam in power at the end of the Gulf War, and perfectly alright to take Iraqi ground fire directed at US aircraft dozens of times since '91, and to let him kick UN weapons inspectors out of the country in '98, but now something (what?) is not OK? This simply doesn't make sense.

3) Dunno yet; But it there is a strong possibility that Atta met with an Iraqi intel officer at least once.

To use perhaps a too-obvious example, Lee Harvey Oswald lived in the Soviet Union, and met several times with Soviet agents, yet no one seriously considers his assassination of JFK to have been a Soviet-sponsored terrorist act.

4)Two different answers:

The Middle-East regimes see a free and democratic Iraq as a direct threat to their own dictatorships/oligarchies.

As opposed to seeing the current Iraqi regime as a threat to their borders, as seems to be the case.

Europe has a bug up its collective ass about America. We invade, we are imperialists. We do not, then when Mssr. Hussien pulls his next wacky stunt, we are blamed for not having done something about it sooner. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Setting aside for the moment the absurdity of this scenario (it says that if the March to Baghdad is called off, European politicos will bash the US for not carrying out an invasion that many of them are on record as having opposed), this answer appears to presume that the European Union is an undeclared enemy of the US. Perhaps we are preparing to invade the wrong country, eh?

5. Combination. There will be some equivalent of martial law for some time, with phased-in democratic elections eventually determining leadership.

Well, at last one I can agree with.

Thank you, "Mr. President", for your comments. I can't, however, say that I am any more satisfied as to your motives than before I posed my questions.

[Sparc]

Errrr L_C,

I think I was agreeing that it had naught to do with Bush strategy. The fact still remains that Iraq has yet to comply with a good dozen UN resolutions and until such time remains a threat to stability in the region specifically, and universal principals generally. That Bush exagerates this for reasons mentioned in your post doesn't make the OP more sensible - but your post makes for a good OP in itself.

In all other parts I agree with you throughout, so I won’t bet against you.

Sparc

[SPOOFE]

C'mon chaps, face it; there will be no war
Ten bucks says you're right. If we haven't gone in yet, we're not going to. Right now, we're glaring at Saddam and saying, "C'mon, give us a reason... we dare ya!"

The nice thing about that is that it pretty much guarantees that Saddam won't try anything. After a few months, the U.S. will cool down, and things'll get all hunky-dory again (sorta).

[TheeGrumpy]

What would Dubya's favorite political philosopher have to say about how to treat one's enemies, I wonder?

[Brutus]

But to suggest that this invasion has something to do with getting some paypack for Daddy is nonsense.


To use perhaps a too-obvious example, Lee Harvey Oswald lived in the Soviet Union, and met several times with Soviet agents, yet no one seriously considers his assassination of JFK to have been a Soviet-sponsored terrorist act.


I haven't said that Iraq supported the 9-11 terrorists, but more information is needed. As things stand, the issue is murky.

The meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intel officer would not be sufficient justification for an invasion.


As opposed to seeing the current Iraqi regime as a threat to their borders, as seems to be the case.


I'll add that one to my talking points. But in all honesty, I think the various regimes of the area fear a democratic pro-US Iraq more then they fear the conventional Iraqi army.


Setting aside for the moment the absurdity of this scenario (it says that if the March to Baghdad is called off, European politicos will bash the US for not carrying out an invasion that many of them are on record as having opposed), this answer appears to presume that the European Union is an undeclared enemy of the US. Perhaps we are preparing to invade the wrong country, eh?


I like your line of thinking. I will put you on my stategery team! But alas, thanks to 8 years of Clinton, we no longer have the military capability of seizing Europe, and saving them from themselves.

Look at it this way: If, say in 4 years, in a 'we did not invade Iraq' world, Iraq does something nasty. They gas a bunch of people (inside or out of their borders). Or they supply VX gas to Palestinian terrorists. Along those lines.
Of course America will get blamed, partially! We would be blamed for not having taken care of the problem back when it would have been simple to do so.



Well, at last one I can agree with.

Thank you, "Mr. President", for your comments. I can't, however, say that I am any more satisfied as to your motives than before I posed my questions.

You are already on my 'strategery team', so no more kissing up!



Sparc,

Plays the devils advocate for a moment, and tell me why Europe is against an American invasion of Iraq. My standard news sources (Fox News, CNN and 'The Simspons') tell me that the various gov't of Europe are opposed, but no detail is given.

I really don't know why Europe is not giving us the go ahead on this one (it's not like we are asking for military assistance, but a Panzer division or two would be nice, eh?).

I have not been in Europe for years, and my family in Croatia is so hawkish that they make me look like a pacifist, so I cannot seem to get a good set of reasons, from the European perspective, as to why we shouldn't invade.

[Blalron]

Why don't we invade the Vatican while we're at it. It's the capitol of a religion that has killed millions of people (Crusades, Inquisition, etc) and stunted scientific progress (Galileo).

I don't see any reason why not to invade Vatican City.

[London_Calling]

No worries, Sparc – just thought it was worth injecting a fellow conservative's (of Bush) perspective. Blalron's suggestion of an increase in Orwellian style rhetoric doesn't seem that harsh to me - we are being asked to not only look at the issues in black and white but also from increasingly obtuse angles and, at this point, it would seem appropriate to be concerned as much with 'perspective change' as any changes Bush desires within the Iraqi leadership.
Originally posted by Brutus
I really don't know why Europe is not giving us the go ahead on this one (it's not like we are asking for military assistance, but a Panzer division or two would be nice, eh?).

I have not been in Europe for years, and my family in Croatia is so hawkish that they make me look like a pacifist, so I cannot seem to get a good set of reasons, from the European perspective, as to why we shouldn't invade.

In the most general terms and off the top of my head:


No evidence of WOMD
No evidence of terrorist links
No current UN Mandate (Europe's keen on the legalities)
Europe trades and dialogues with Iraq
Europe sees no threat from Iraq
Europe believes the consequences of invasion are not quantifiable or (possibly) containable
Europe sees no alternative Iraqi Administration (power vacuum)
Europe sees no end game to the Bush invasion scenario
Europe seriously doubts Bush's abilities to manage a war
Europe fundamentally dislikes Bush's self-serving motivations and personal agenda
Europe doesn't want to play ball with an Isolationist


Sure Europe wants the UN Inspectors to return – this time, hopefully, without the duplicitous spying-for-the-US contingent – and sees trade and dialogue as the best way to achieve that (nb. UK Ministerial visit to Libya last week). But then Europe would, it doesn't have the military cohesion of the US or the conservative/Isolationist/self-serving agenda of Bush.

[Sephic]

Originally posted by Brutus
Look at it this way: If, say in 4 years, in a 'we did not invade Iraq' world, Iraq does something nasty. They gas a bunch of people (inside or out of their borders). Or they supply VX gas to Palestinian terrorists. Along those lines.
Of course America will get blamed, partially! We would be blamed for not having taken care of the problem back when it would have been simple to do so. This comes down to "Is a World Police a good idea, and in the unlikely event that it is, should a country like America play that role?"

My answer to both questions is a resounding, unshakable NO.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by London_Calling
Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism[/b]. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists."

London_Calling, you are getting obsessed with Mr. Ritter. I don't doubt he is sincere, but no one else agrees with him, [u]including his own organization.

Here's UNSCOM's

report to the Security Council from 1999 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm) on chemical weapons.

On biological weapons. (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm)

On missiles. (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-miss.htm)

On Iraq's efforts to obstruct the inspections upon which Mr. Ritter bases his assertions. (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-acti.htm)

Saddam's son-in-law has provided detailed information about Iraq's ongoing WMD programs (after he defected). http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm

Ritter reminds me of that loon who kept insisting that a U.S. naval missile shot down EgyptAir Flight 990. Anyone remember his name? A really respected guy (IIRC, he was one of JFK's top advisors), but he was really off the reservation on that one. Sounds like Ritter is too.

Sua

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Ritter reminds me of that loon who kept insisting that a U.S. naval missile shot down EgyptAir Flight 990. Anyone remember his name? A really respected guy (IIRC, he was one of JFK's top advisors), but he was really off the reservation on that one. Sounds like Ritter is too.Sua Pierre Salinger http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/13/twa/

[SuaSponte]

Thanks, december

Sua

[Henry B]

Hi Guys!

I've been travelling for a month so I am not so very well informed who has bombed who the last month, but:
You have funny ways to speak about things:
Atta has contacted some Iraqi intel officer, so let's bomb!

I am a Finnish citizen living in Russia for 6 years.
I have been contacted by three-letter-guys from 3 different countries. So logically if I do something really wierd, You begin to bomb Germany, USA and a "Guess Who"-country?

And bin Laden was in contact with CIA when Russia had a war in Afganistan. Conclusion: Bomb USA?????

And You think US = The Free World
Why on earth should You go alone anywhere and begin a war?
Why can You not go through UN or NATO with Your "evidence".
It is not enough that You see a bad regime. It is not evidence.

How about Turkmenistan, Libya and some 10 other countries. The Belo-Russian president is a total luna-guy. You will begin a war there too?
Or do You trust Gaddaffi?

You will certainly face many wars, if You have the attitude: "We have evidence, but we do not show it to anybody, we just begin a war."

It is not a computer game. I would say that a war against Iraq begins with "a conflict at the border of Kuweit. Anyone can fix that. Then everything can start "cleanly" (just defending the under-dog):
some 1 million solidiers dead, some 1 million civilians dead. Game over.
Reload, please.

Yeah, and the next generation kids can read in their history books:
....and Atta met someone and the westerner principle: "Not guilty until proven guilty" is ready for "the scrap heap of history....", (told by a guy, non less than the US president).
Nice.

So what should we fight for, the western principles? Or just the usual oil-question?
(Libya and Turkmenistan has also oil).

Btw. Chemical weapons can be done by any idiot that can use Internet or a public library. You just need to go to the nearest pharmacy and supermarket and You have everything You need.
Biological are maybe not so easy to make, but I do not think You need a nation for that, I think that it is enough if You have money.

1) Please prove something before punishing (I think this the very root of western democracy)
and
2) Then make some united forces that can stop "The Bad". But first proofs, please.

Henry

[pldennison]

Originally posted by TheeGrumpy
What would Dubya's favorite political philosopher have to say about how to treat one's enemies, I wonder?

Pardon my vulgarity, but who really gives a shit? Decisions that George W. Bush makes as President affect the entire nation, and the nations with which he is conducting business or waging war. Bush is certainly entitled to turn his own cheek if he wants, but he is not entitled to turn mine as well. What's more, he is not entitled to make decisions based on What Jesus Would Do. My country is not a theocracy.

[Sparc]

Henry B is back... this could get fun!

[London_Calling]

Found it ! Apologies for being ever so slightly late to respond!

Originally posted by London_Calling - Oh no it's not !
Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism[/b]. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists."

Originally posted by SuaSponte
London_Calling, you are getting obsessed with Mr. Ritter. I don't doubt he is sincere, but no one else agrees with him, [u]including his own organization.

Found the link to this in the back of my e-mail so I apologise for letting it slip by. If anyone's still interested.....



That quote wasn't mine Sua. It's a direct quote from the link – take it back or I'll whack you with my framed photo of Mr Ritter. Anyway, on the subject of Ritter, as best I can tell, the current understanding of Iraq's weapons potential revolves, to a large extent, around the views of the two leading protagonists: The two former colleagues; Scott Ritter and Richard Butler

On the one hand we have an ex Gulf War Vet, ex-Intelligence, ex-US Marine, ex-UN Inspectorate, anti-Saddam US conservative and Republican vs. an Australian career mandarin currently employed by the UN and, for many, in the pay of the US. You pay yer money and you make your choice.

I suspect Ritter's been discredited because he was the whistleblower on the UN/US spying mission and because he wouldn't play the game for the Clinton Administration. Elsewhere, his record and experience (to my knowledge) is excellent. On the other hand, I trust the keen-to-please Richard Butler as far as I can throw his pension.

I'm not going to burden you with endless links but here's one that offers a different perspective on the wonderful work (sic) Butler did for the US while in the employ of the UN. A brief extract:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/butler2.htm

Butler wrote in his report that UNSCOM had 'solid evidence' of 'proscribed materials' hidden there, including 'ballistic missle components'. The London Times on 17 December revealed that this 'solid' evidence was only the say-so of US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)- backed Iraqi 'dissidents' seeking to overthrow the Baath Party. UNSCOM inspectors also demanded the right to inspect two establishments on Fridays - the Muslim holy day - and insisted that no Iraqis accompany then. This breached an agreement that government officials accompany inspectors on Frodays if nobody is working at the site. Despite writing, 'In statistical terms, the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation', Butler concluded, 'the Commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council.' Russia and China called for Butler's dismissal. China's UN representative said, 'The leader of UNSCOM has played a dishonorable role in the crisis. The reports submitted by UNSCOM to the secretary general were unfounded and evasive of the facts.'

- I don't see that Ritter has the record or the agenda of Butler. He has the look of an independent loose cannon (albeit a US conservative, Republican, ex-Marine) whereas Butler would seem to be in the pocket of vested interests.



Might be interesting to try and get to the bottom of the Ritter vs. Butler, handbags-at-dawn deal ?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by London_Calling
I don't see that Ritter has the record or the agenda of Butler. He has the look of an independent loose cannon (albeit a US conservative, Republican, ex-Marine) whereas Butler would seem to be in the pocket of vested interests.

Might be interesting to try and get to the bottom of the Ritter vs. Butler, handbags-at-dawn deal ?

Bottom found. Ritter is either a liar or a loon.

Here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html) is an August 31, 1998 interview with Mr. Ritter after his resignation as weapons inspector. To sum up his position then: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program. (emphasis added)

Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no "effective monitoring" since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD.

from L_C
I suspect Ritter's been discredited because he was the whistleblower on the UN/US spying mission and because he wouldn't play the game for the Clinton Administration. Elsewhere, his record and experience (to my knowledge) is excellent. Actually, he's doing a fine job discrediting himself. BTW, the reason he said he resigned was because the US wasn't doing enough to uncover Saddam's WMD.
What I want to accomplish from this resignation is to highlight the fact that it's incumbent upon the United States to exercise the leadership to turn this problem around. If the world wants to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, as the world has said they want to do in accordance with the Security Council's resolution, then we're headed down the wrong path. We're not going to succeed if we continue to move in this direction.

Interesting, no?

Sua

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by London_Calling
I don't see that Ritter has the record or the agenda of Butler. He has the look of an independent loose cannon (albeit a US conservative, Republican, ex-Marine) whereas Butler would seem to be in the pocket of vested interests.

Might be interesting to try and get to the bottom of the Ritter vs. Butler, handbags-at-dawn deal ?

Bottom found. Ritter is either a liar or a loon.

Here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html) is an August 31, 1998 interview with Mr. Ritter after his resignation as weapons inspector. To sum up his position then: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program. (emphasis added)

Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no "effective monitoring" since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD.

from L_C
I suspect Ritter's been discredited because he was the whistleblower on the UN/US spying mission and because he wouldn't play the game for the Clinton Administration. Elsewhere, his record and experience (to my knowledge) is excellent. Actually, he's doing a fine job discrediting himself. BTW, the reason he said he resigned was because the US wasn't doing enough to uncover Saddam's WMD.
What I want to accomplish from this resignation is to highlight the fact that it's incumbent upon the United States to exercise the leadership to turn this problem around. If the world wants to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, as the world has said they want to do in accordance with the Security Council's resolution, then we're headed down the wrong path. We're not going to succeed if we continue to move in this direction.

Interesting, no?

Sua

[SuaSponte]

A November 1998 interview with Scott Ritter. (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00337.html)
Rose: How would you put pressure on Iraq without sanctions?

Ritter: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's
not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be
diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to
international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being
pointed at the heads of inspectors.

The US pushed it. We're in this position because the US wanted Iraq disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It's up to the United States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren't working. They're not going to work. There's only one person to blame for all of this and it's Saddam Hussein. He has to be held accountable. I think the answer is quite obvious what has to happen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don't have to say it.
So, In November 1998, Ritter's position was that the US should invade Iraq. In my book Ritter has gone from loon to utter jackass.

Sua

[London_Calling]

Okay, I'm going to look at this closer. FWIW, at the moment I want to see if Ritter towed the US line whilst still emplyed by the UN but once released from his obligations/employment, changed his tune to reflect his own views - his career looks to be all about 'loyalty', etc. Ollie North with a conscience :D

Butler has been consistent.


No reason to think Ritter's a loon at all. Trying to understand what went on is interesting, though.

[SuaSponte]

L_C, both above interviews came after Ritter's resignation from the UN.

One more bit, and then I'll leave poor Mr. Ritter alone. In January 2000, Ritter testified before Congress. (http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/Ritter%20Test.html) In that testimony, he said: So don't judge my position today based upon the narrow interpretation of my words [in Congressional testimony] in September of 1998. OK, fine.

How do we "broadly" interpret this bit from his Congressional testimony in September 1998? (http://www.nci.org/t/t91598.htm) What I have indicated in the past is that the special commission had received sensitive information of some credibility, which indicated that Iraq had the components to assemble three implosion- type devices, minus the fissile material, and that if Iraq were able to obtain fissile material of the quality and of the proper physical properties conducive to such a weapon, then they could assemble three nuclear devices in a very short period of time.
[snip]
If the components of the implosion device are operational, if they have not been damaged through moving them around the country and hiding them from the inspection teams, and the fissile core is of the correct properties, it's a matter of days, maybe weeks before they could be assembled into a device.

Sua

[vanilla]

I am in the middle of reading a good book called Rule by Secrecy by jim Marrs.
In it, he postulates that Bush(es) want conflict in that area; it has something to do with their oil interests.

[SuaSponte]

Missed this before, L_C. Sorry about the misattribution of the quote. Please don't whack me with Mr. Ritter's photograph - unless it's signed. :D

Sua

[Apos]

---Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no "effective monitoring" since UNSCOM was kicked out---

As I understand it, the latter part of this is actually a fairly controversial claim. Most papers at the time reported that UNSCOM withdrew itself, under the direction of Richard Butler (head of the team then) in anticipation of a U.N. attack on Iraq. Butler felt that the Iraqi's were not cooperating fully (and they almost certainly were not) but it's not clear at all that Iraq kicked them out. They left.

Further, Iraq's charges of the team being used for espionage were bourne out: it was a mainstream story and egg on the face of Clinton that the team, in addition to doing inspections, had members who were gathering info for the purposes of undermining Saddam's regime. I think Butler was very unhappy at this, feeling that it underminded their primary mission.

[SuaSponte]

Fair enough, Apos, UNSCOM withdrew. But leaving and not being let back in or being kicked out, the result is the same - there's been no "effective monitoring."

Iraq's charges of espionage were bourne out. They were also, when you think of it, pretty damn silly - the whole of UNSCOM was an espionage operation. The purpose of UNSCOM was to track down information the Iraqi government wanted to keep a secret. Ritter himself freely acknowledges this - his job was chief of UNSCOM's "information assessment unit", which he (in one of the interviews I linked above) says was UNese for "intelligence."

So who should the UN send on an intelligence mission? Intelligence agents. With the exception of some technical experts, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole UNSCOM staff consisted of French, Russian, American, etc. intelligence agents. And are they going to do spying on the side and report to their governments what they discover? Of course.

Sua

[clairobscur]

[/quote]Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. [......]Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(emphasis added)

Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no "effective monitoring" since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD. [/quote]



According to the article quoted by London Calling, Ritter adressed this argument, roughly saying that there was monitoring (note the "without monotoring" part in the piece you quoted) and there's no way Irak could have resumed its weapon production programm without it being noticed, Irak being under close scrutinity.

[clairobscur]

Sorry, I totally messed up my previous post...




Fair enough, Apos, UNSCOM withdrew. But leaving and not being let back in or being kicked out, the result is the same - there's been no "effective monitoring."


From the article originally quoted by London Calling :


Ritter believed Iraq technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of his departure. [....].

"Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch [....]. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.

"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof," said Ritter, "plain and simple."

[Apos]

---They were also, when you think of it, pretty damn silly - the whole of UNSCOM was an espionage operation.---

There's espionage, and then there's espionage. What was objected to was feeding information not about weapons, but rather about regime (like the positions of various officials), directly to the U.S.: not a U.N. thing.

[SuaSponte]

Clairobscur, Mr. 1998 Ritter did not say that Iraq would have to start from scratch. He said instead, as I quoted above, that Iraq had merely disassembled its weapons and hidden the components around Iraq. Mr. 2002 Ritter fails to explain how we would have "definitive proof" of the reassembly of these weapons.

Mr. 1998 Ritter said that Since Saddam has blocked the inspectors from conducting any meaningful information-gathering for the past four months [from August 1998 - December 1998]
http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122198/ritter122198.html But Mr. 2002 Ritter says that Iraq "fully complied" with inspections.

And how does Mr. 2002 Ritter mesh his assertion that Saddam has no WMD and would have to start "completely from scratch" with Mr. 1998 Ritter's assertions in the above-linked article that:
Even today [December 1998], Iraq is not nearly disarmed. UNSCOM lacks a full declaration from Iraq concerning its prohibited capabilities, making any absolute pronouncement about the extent of Iraq's retained proscribed arsenal inherently tentative. But, based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.

Mr. 2002 Ritter may well be right that if Iraq started building new factories to produce WMD we would notice. But he fails to account for Mr. 1998 Ritter's belief that Iraq retained enough biological WMD to "fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missiles" and retained "several tons" of VX, as well as sarin and mustard gas.

It's crystal clear that either Mr. 1998 Ritter or Mr. 2002 Ritter was lying. I'm betting it is Mr. 2002 Ritter. All of the other evidence - including the UNSCOM reports - agree with Mr. 1998 Ritter.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

The more I read, the more this guy Ritter pisses me off. In June 2002, Ritter said:
'It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.' http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/weapons

If we could determine in 1997 that Saddam was disarmed, why did Mr. Ritter say in 1998 that We have to resolve this situation and resolve it now.
If that means the United States has to hike up its pants, roll up its sleeves and get in there and start swinging then by God get it done. Because if you don't do it now you are going to have to do it later and the price you pay now is going to pale in comparison with the price you have to pay down the road. (from the November 1998 interview linked above)
If Mr. Ritter knew in 1997 that Iraq was disarmed, why was he advocating that the US invade Iraq in 1998? For kicks and giggles? Because he thought it would be fun to kill Iraqis?

I shy away with a vengance from conspiracy theories, speculation about ulterior motives, and the like. But something just ain't right here. Why did Ritter completely reverse himself, both on his opinion and on the facts over the past four years?

Sua

[London_Calling]

Yep, somethings not quite right. Okay, this is as close as I've got so far – going to look at more sources in the morning:

Ritter went to Iraq in July 2000 – no connection with any org at that time. His view as of Saturday, 29 July, 2000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/857361.stm


Mr Ritter, a former US Marine who was once vilified by Baghdad, visited suspected weapons manufacturing sights on Saturday at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.

The former UN weapons inspector, who backed a US-British bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 for not co-operating with the UN, has now concluded that Iraq has in fact disarmed and no longer poses a threat to anyone.



Q: Did Ritter change his mind as a result of that visit and independent inspection – if so, it seems (on the face of it) to be surprising that he felt able to be as conclusive given UNSCOM had hundreds of staff in situ at its height ?

[London_Calling]

Sorry Sua, I should point out that your post above (relying on Pilger) worried me – Pilger is very left of centre and there was no source for the quote from June 2000. Happier with the BBC from July 29th 2000.

[London_Calling]

I think I have something of a grasp on Ritter's position now. Found this radio interview particularly helpful (anyone wishing to listen will need the Real Player/ Windows Media thingy)

Audio – Interview with Scott Ritter – note: I think it's at least 15 minutes long.


Go here (http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/exile/dn20011130.html) and click the top link entitled ': THE UN SAYS IT WILL CONTINUE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WARNS IRAQ THAT IT FACES ATTACK UNLESS IT READMITS UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS. A TALK WITH FORMER UN WEAPONS INSPECTOR SCOTT RITTER '



Broad context:

Saddam is a "brutal dictator", the current US Administration (in relation to Iraq) is conducting a "personal vendetta" for self-serving reasons and which is "ideologically driven".

Ritter divorces the issue of whether Iraq does or doesn't have WOMD from the 'war on terrorism' (sic) – separate issue all together for him.



On Richard Butler:

Claims he's extremely keen to debate with Butler but that Butler won't. In his view, Butler continues to represent the views of his former masters because Butler is unwilling to acknowledge (in his own mind) the extent to which he (Butler) undermined his own UN weapons Inspectorate. Result now:

Butler espouses ideologically driven rhetorical speculation whereas he (Ritter) espouses only documented facts.



On his perceived change of mind on whether Iraq has WOMD:

Ritter says there has been no change in his position at all. Two areas:

One – Ritter says he has always supported, and fought for, "the law". He says the law has changed. At the time the Inspectorate was in situ, the UN Security Council wanted a 100% verification of the destruction of Saddam's weaponry and means (Resolutions 687, 707, 715 and 1051). Those Resolutions are no longer applicable – that UN 'law' has gone. However, Ritter believes they got to 90-95% of Saddam's weaponry and capability. In his view that is okay/reasonable because that capability Saddam reflects any nations legitimate defence requirements.

Two – Ritter says he never said Saddam "doesn't have" WOMD, he has always maintained a "don't know" – all that was media/US influenced manipulation, particularly by people like 'Stephen Hays' (going back to the point about a US Administration ideologically driven personal vendetta).

Also, he says there was an "accounting issue" after the Gulf War in so much as no one knew what Saddam had left (chemical weapons) and that was never fully addressed. However, given that 90-95% of Saddam's capability had been destroyed, given the difficulties of reconstituting a highly sophisticated development programme and the fact that no one has any evidence (satellite recon, etc) of same, Ritter says "it is highly unlikely" Saddam has rebuilt in the past three years.


My summary:

Ritter is anti-US policy (manipulative of the facts, ideologically driven, etc) and anti-Saddam (a "ruthless Dictator"). He claims to concentrate on interpreting the facts in relation to the law of the day and the evidence available whereas Butler and the US espouse rhetorical speculation based on an ideologically driven (sub) agenda.

He believes he has been wholly consistent but that, instead, the rules have the game have changed (100% destruction of everything (as per UN Resolutions) being now replaced by a different standard, that of legitimate national defence requirements).

Believes he has been smeared/misrepresented by some of the media at the behest of the US. He also told CBC News that the U.S. had fabricated intelligence reports.

However IMHO, it’s also possible that over the years Iraq has developed the capability to produce its own culture media. In 1995, UNSCOM apparently – UNSCOM being somewhat discredited and US Intelligence reports questioned by Ritter - found evidence that Iraq was covertly producing bio-warfare agents and was manufacturing and processing equipment domestically, to eliminate any needs for a dependency on imports.

Alos, there remains the unknown "accounting" issue. As Ritter says; "We don't know".


- In short; Fuck knows what's going on. But at least we now know a little more about why we don't know. IMHO.

Thoughts ?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by London_Calling
Ritter went to Iraq in July 2000 – no connection with any org at that time. His view as of Saturday, 29 July, 2000:

Mr Ritter, a former US Marine who was once vilified by Baghdad, visited suspected weapons manufacturing sights on Saturday at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.

The former UN weapons inspector, who backed a US-British bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 for not co-operating with the UN, has now concluded that Iraq has in fact disarmed and no longer poses a threat to anyone.

Q: Did Ritter change his mind as a result of that visit and independent inspection – if so, it seems (on the face of it) to be surprising that he felt able to be as conclusive given UNSCOM had hundreds of staff in situ at its height ?

I agree Pilger ain't what we would call the perfect source, but we have better evidence than him that Ritter's July 2000 "inspection" did not cause Ritter to do a complete 180. From Ritter himself in a September/October 1999 interview: (http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/Sep-Oct_99/ScottRitter.html) When you ask the question, "Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?" the answer is a resounding "NO!" "Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale?" "No!" "Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale?" "No!" "Ballistic missiles?" "No!" It is "no" across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.

I'll follow with a discussion of your last post.

Sua

[Henry B]

London_Calling wrote:
"Sorry Sua, I should point out that your post above (relying on Pilger) worried me – Pilger is very left of centre and there was no source for the quote from June 2000. Happier with the BBC from July 29th 2000."

Just a short small side-step:
John Pilger's latest film, Palestine Is Still The Issue, will be broadcasted in ITV in the UK on Monday 16 September at 11.00pm.

Can someone look through the program? I am just interested if it is worth to buy a copy. (Not an easy task from here).

Please continue with Ritter etc.

[SuaSponte]

I was afraid of this. L_C, I had written out a fairly detailed response to your summary of Ritter's interview (the audio link didn't work for me), but some Internet monster ate it. Three quick thoughts (I swear I had links to back these up. ;))

1. Based at least in part on his July 2000 inspection, Ritter asserts that Iraq was WMD-free. In a January 1999 article for The New Republic, he warned that inspections where the Iraqis knew where you were going to look were useless;

2. Ritter's position, in a July 2002 CNN interview, is that the UN should be pushing to get the inspectors back in. In the July 29, 2000 BBC article you linked, Ritter stated that any future weapons inspections were "doomed to fail."

3. He says that he is talking about "documented facts," while Butler is speaking ideologically-driven rhetorical speculation. In January 1999, Ritter taught a course at Calvin College. The course description (presumably approved by Ritter), states that Ritter will discuss Iraq's ability to deliver (i.e. blow the crap out of someone) chemical and bioweapons within 6 months, and nukes within three years of that time. Was that "dcoumented facts" or "ideologically-driven rhetorical speculation"? (As of January 1999, Ritter had no affiliations).

Sua