Nadine, I couldn't see any changed story from that interview. He said then there were no weapons, just briefcases of stuff being moved around and attempts to maintain activities prohibited by the UN such as the Romanian purchase.
They'd done 99% of the UNSCOM work and were being obstructed from doing the last bit.
Looked at from Saddam's point of view and his supporters' point of view, the CIA was spying using UNSCOM and Scott Ritter supported that activity and the USA was out to get Saddam and maintain sanctions for no good reason. Even if they complied with UN requirements, they'd get to keep the sanctions. Forever and ever, Amen, or, more likely, until the Saudi oil ran out and some new sources were needed.
It's all about the oil. As I've pointed out, the western oil industry profits were enormous and still are. Keeping such a huge supply of oil as the Iraqi fields off the market enables a hefty price boost for friends of the USA such as the Saudis [who seem peculiarly bent on supporting and conducting Islamic Jihad against the USA - and succeeded in the most spectacular attack ever].
Saddam had it figured out right at the beginning - he knew sanctions wouldn't be coming off, no matter what he did.
Letting CIA spies crawl all over Iraq at a moment's notice wouldn't be contributing to Saddam's health or that of his supporters, so it's obvious that they would offer as much resistance as they could.
Scott Ritter still looks okay to me. All I see so far is a smear campaign. Maybe he's a CIA superspy double double double agent, or working for Mossad, or NZ's very cunning SIS [snicker]. Is he a Jew? Or, more importantly, were his parents?
What's wrong with Scott Ritter accepting $100,000 from Saddam or some Iraqi businessman to do a documentary? Everyone else seems to have been happy to accept stuff from Saddam. Oil for example under an oil for food programme. Lots of countries were happy to sell weapons and lots more besides.
Mqurice |
