Let me repeat this again, and make it simple for you.
1. Until 1998 Scott Ritter was an UNSCOM inspector, and was the most hawkish of the hawks about the dangers of Saddams WMDs. He got kicked out of Iraq in 1998, which was when all new reliable data about the weapons programs ceased.
2. Before 2000, Scott Ritter said Saddam was dangerous, had not cooperated with the UNSCOM inspectors, and could reconstitute his bio weapons programs in 6 months and it had to be assumed that he would do so.
3. Around 2000, Scott Ritter got $400K for a "documentary" from an Iraqi businessman, who got it from Saddam's $100 billion dollar Oil-for-Food slush fund.
4. After 2000, Scott Ritter suddently began announcing that Saddam was no danger, there was no need to worry about his connections with terrorists, or his bio-weapons programs, no need for war, none at all, no sir. He adamantly denied changing his story as well, despite the obvious evidence.
No new data about the actual state of Saddam's programs had been received between points 2. and 4. Just the $400K of cash in point 3. Now what does that tell you? or should I be addressing you by only the first half of your handle?
5. Finally , Ritter announces that Saddam has actually been in league with the Islamists for ten years, a point that until now was used by pro-war hawks to point out the dangers of a Saddam-Islamist-terrorist alliance (the anti-war camp loudly declaimed that the secular Saddam had nothing whatever to do with the Islamists). Naturally, Ritter does not consider that aspect of the story, nor its contradictions with his previous statement, but only gloats that the Ba'athists are winning.
The man has contradicted himself repeatedly, and done so for money. No sensible person should trust Ritter's word on anything, not if he informed them that water is wet. |
