From: Hawkmoon
on top of no WMD having been found (as Ritter said they wouldn't be),
Hmm... which Ritter should we believe? The one who stated after 5 years of NO INSPECTIONS that there were no WMD's in Iraq??
Or the one who stated UNDER OATH in September, 1998, that he was resigning BECAUSE THE US WAS NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT SUPPORT TO FACILITATE THE DISCOVERY OF IRAQ'S WMDS (which he THEN firmly believed existed):
existentialmoo.com
Excerpts taken from the testimony of Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector before the U.S. Senate
September 3, 1998
MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee; last week I resigned my position out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq. I can speak to you today from firsthand experience about the effectiveness of American policy or lack thereof, with respect to the United Nations's effort to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I sincerely hope that my actions might help to change things.
It was very sad to hear the secretary of State (Note: Madeline Albright) on Tuesday night giving an interview from Moscow challenging my credentials. She told the world through CNN that Scott Ritter doesn't have a clue about what our overall policy has been, that we are the foremost supporters of UNSCOM. I do have a clue, in fact several, all of which indicate that our government has clearly expressed its policy in one way and then acted in another. Such clues include various statements by the secretary of State, a report to Congress on 6 April by the president of the United States and several statements made to me and to other UNSCOM officials at a variety of inter-agency briefings held at the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House. If these were the only clues, the administration's record would be impressive. However, I can say without fear of contradiction and with the confidence that most of my former colleagues agree with me that those clues derive from the practical experience obtained on the ground in Iraq and behind the scenes at the United Nations tell another story: that the United States has undermined UNSCOM's efforts through interference and manipulation, usually coming from the highest levels of the administration's national security team, to include the secretary of State herself.
Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership. I'm here today to provide you with specific details about the scope and nature of interference by this administration in UNSCOM, the debilitating effect that such interference has on the ability of UNSCOM to carry out its disarmament mission in Iraq and to appeal to the administration and to the Senate to work together to change America's Iraq policy back to what has been stated in the past: full compliance with the provisions of Security Council resolutions, to include enabling UNSCOM to carry out its mission of disarmament in an unrestricted, unhindered fashion. Only through the reestablishment of such a policy, clearly stated and resolutely acted upon, does the United States have a chance of resuming its leadership role in overseeing the effective and verifiable disarmament of Iraq so that neither we nor Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East will be threatened by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons. Within the confines of the need to protect the sources and methods used by the special commission to gather relevant information, I am prepared to give you whatever details I can so you will understand why I gave up such an interesting, challenging and meaningful position in which I had hoped to have the chance to contribution to making the world a little safer. Thank you.
*********************************
So which Scott Ritter should we believe E?? UNSCOM inspections terminated in July, 1998, shortly before Mr. Ritter's testimony. They terminated because UNSCOM discovered an Iraqi Air Force document detailing that some 6,000 chemical warheads, supposedly expended during the war with Iran, had NOT BEEN EXPENDED (only 13,000 used instead of the 19,000 claimed by Iraq in 1991).
The document was discovered by an inspector who, when it was realized the astounding nature of the 6 page document, began taking notes. Almost immediately their Iraqi "minder" confiscated the document and Iraq refused to provide it until November, 2002 (after UNSC 1441 was passed and Iraq only had 90 days to account for it's missing WMD inventories.).. But when provided, no explanation or accounting was ever made by Iraq.
So, I have to ask again.. If Scott Ritter was SO CONVINCED in September, 1998 about the existence of Iraq's WMD program, EXACTLY WHAT made him change his mind over the following 5 years WHEN NO INSPECTIONS WERE TAKING PLACE..
Anyone reading those quotes, without being aware of the time frame they were made, would have to believe that Ritter was being a "shill" for the Bush administration in 2002.
But if anything, it appeared that the Clinton administration was cozying up with the French, who wanted to lift sanctions against Iraq that year (prior to the discovery of that document, which few of us heard about at the time.. Dare we imply "cover up" of incriminating intelligence by the previous administration?).
On WHAT BASIS was he making such ludicrous statements?
Or was it that he was bought off with $400,000 worth of Iraqi money (for his movie)..
Care to offer an opinion?
Hawk
___________________________________________________________
Want some more of Mr. Ritter's testimony from 1998?
existentialmoo.com
MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs.
And guess what E..??
David Kay DID DISCOVER that Saddam was STILL building rockets that would exceed the limits set in UNSC 687.
Maybe "the old" Mr. Ritter might have been right, after all...
How about some more??
MR. RITTER: Yes, sir. Again, I believe that the February agreement is part of a cycle of activity which has started earlier -- much earlier -- in fact, the summer of 1996, in which Iraq provokes a confrontation with weapons inspectors, knowing that there will not be consensus for decisive action in the Security Council and as a result gets a concession from the Security Council. What happened in February is such a concession. Why the United States supports this is that they, I believe they are understanding that it's difficult to put together a coalition, and they want to keep the inspection process moving forward. However, they're in a situation where by saving the inspection process they are destroying the inspection process. And this is one reason why I felt the need to resign; I would not be part of a destruction of something of this nature.
Very powerful statement by Mr. Ritter.. Effectively asserting that the entire "inspection process" was rigged from the beginning for failure, or to only achieve cosmetic results.
Are these the kinds of inspections that so many people out there wanted to perpetuate with UNMOVIC??
Oh.. and btw y'all, Mr. Ritter understands the nature of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, unlike so many people amongst you all:
MR. RITTER: Yes, sir, one of my frustrations is that the Special Commission has been handed what indeed is a good task -- to rid the world of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. And the Security Council, in passing its resolution under Chapter 7, said that is was an enforceable task.
And this important comment:
MR. RITTER: The issue of enforcing Security Council resolutions belongs to the Security Council and its collective member states. I am a weapons inspector. I have been tasked with carrying out Security Council resolutions which call for the disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council has established the law. We have been told to implement the law. And if blocked, the Security Council has promised to enforce the law. How they choose to enforce it is their business. What I am saying today is we are being blocked from doing our job.
Stand by and maybe I'll post some more of Mr. Ritter's testimony..
**************** |
