Bush: Iraq "enemy until proven otherwise"

[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 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:

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