Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 6:15:04 PM
From: surfbaron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Elpy: Ritterlin was most vocal about being rebuffed by Sodom. What was/is it that he didn't see then that caused him to want to see it and now he knows for sure that we don't need to worry about.

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 7:21:37 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

This is an edited version....... see full transcript at link..... Following is the full transcript of Fox News Channel's David Asman's interview with former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Sept. 12, 2002. Since this transcript is based on closed-captioning feeds, Fox News cannot verify the absolute accuracy of each statement. DAVID ASMAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: President Bush at the U.N. today mapping out Saddam Hussein's violations of U.N. resolutions. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who at one time warned in similar tones about Saddam Hussein, sounds different now. The question is why. Scott Ritter joins us here in our studio. Good to have you, sir. SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thanks a lot. ASMAN: Let me read to you a couple of quotes. I'm sure you've heard it before, but these are from four years ago, when you sounded about Saddam Hussein not very much different from the way President Bush did today at the U.N. This one is from this week -- August 30, 1998 -- "Six months is a very reasonable time scale for Iraq to resume weapons capabilities." The second two are from Good Morning America also in August of '98. First, "Iraq's job is to avoid bringing the world's attention to the fact they've retained these weapons," and then, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Sounds like Saddam Hussein is very dangerous and could mount a chemical strike right now. RITTER: And what point are you trying to make? ASMAN: Do you disagree with that in any way, shape or form? RITTER: I don't disagree with anything I've ever said. Why in God's name would I disagree with something I've said? ASMAN: Then how is it that people have gotten the impression that since those statements were made, you're now being somewhat apologetic for what Saddam Hussein is doing? RITTER: Forget those people. Let's deal with the facts. First of all, it's a matter of perception. When I resigned, I didn't resign as someone beating the drum of war. I'm not out there promoting war. I didn't promote war when I was a weapons inspector. I'm not promoting war now. I'm promoting the process of weapons inspections as mandated by the Security Council. So I resigned in protest from being unable to do the job of completing the disarmament of Iraq........................... ........................ ASMAN: We're back with the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. We just took a break. You have to make sure you know all the facts. A lot of people saw you go to Iraq. They said, 'He's a traitor.' Take care from people who are sworn enemies. How does that make you feel? RITTER: Sworn enemies, that's a curious statement. ASMAN: ... They say they want death and destruction for the United States. The vice president of Iraq said it is the duty of Arabs anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world, to attack U.S. interests and U.S. individuals. This is the vice president of Iraq. You just admitted it is a dictatorship. RITTER: ... I love my country more than anything. I spent 12 years in the United States Marine Corps. I know what it means to defend this country. ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on. RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ... ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket? RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law. ASMAN: Some people say that some of this money has come from Iraqi-Americans, there's one Iraqi-American in particular, who is perhaps not pro-Saddam but at least people say he's against the U.S. position towards Iraq, that that in itself kind ... of [proves that] Iraq is giving people money to do their bidding. RITTER: ... He's a Detroit-based American businessman. An American citizen. He has family in Iraq. People have to put this in perspective. They are looking death and destruction in the face. You can't blame a guy that is trying to prevent a war. ASMAN: He has no contact whatsoever with anybody in the Iraqi government? RITTER: I didn't say that. How do you think I got the government with him? He can get me the audience. I take advantage. ... I am waging peace in the same way other people wage war -- I am trying to stop a war that doesn't need to be fought. This is not anti-American. [Unintelligible] ... put my life on the line for my country. And I would do so again if the cause is just, if the cause is founded. If there is a threat worth dying for, make the case, Mr. Bush. And I will support your war with Iraq to the hilt. But until you make that case, all we have is speculative rhetoric and that is not justification. ASMAN: We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. The vice president said it this week. Don't you think they are the enemy? RITTER: The situation that's evolving there's definitely an atmosphere of conflict between us and -- United States and Iraq. I'm not going to defend a damn word they say. ASMAN: You're taking money from a guy affiliated from the foreign minister/deputy prime minister. RITTER: I'm not taking any money. It's not going into my pocket. ASMAN: They paid for the trip to Iraq. RITTER: It was paid for by the Public Institute of Accuracy. ASMAN: Just to clear this up for the record, this Iraqi businessman, he is friends with Aziz, he knows people in the Iraqi government. What is he paying to you, anything at all? Are you getting any money? RITTER: [Unintelligible] ... Is there a hand up my back moving my mouth? No. ... not associated with or affiliated with any particular government outside of the United States. The point is we are not being used as a mouthpiece as some people say that Iraqi-American businessman is. You yourself said he's friends with and ... essentially one of Saddam Hussein's henchman. ASMAN: He's a henchman of Saddam Hussein. RITTER: He's had to say things that are [a] total fabrication. I am trying to facilitate peace by making the case a for peace and the only way to do that, you can't get into Iraq unless you have the Iraqi government open the door. Aziz can open the door. If you want to condemn me for making a case so I can diffuse a war-like situation that is going to put hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk, then condemn me. I don't care. ... I am doing everything I can [to ensure] that we exhaust every avenue possible short of war before we go to war........... foxnews.com <my 2¢...... Even when given the chance to speak to the media, Mr. Ritter seems to have unexplained contradictions.>

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 7:32:45 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Mandela Says Iraq Not a Danger Mandela, by the way, cast down on the idea that Iraq even has weapons of mass destruction. Citing his authority, none other than the American Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector from this country who was last seen expressing his doubts in a speech to the Iraqi parliament over the weekend. Ritter's complete turnabout on that issue has now been further documented by what he said in his letter of resignation as an arms inspector four years ago, when he wrote, "The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by the Security Council resolutions." He added inspectors had "good reason to believe there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today." That was four years ago. foxnews.com

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 7:38:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

................ HANNITY: Oh, that's pretty -- I want to talk to you -- I want to ask you -- see who said this back in 1998. "Iraq is not disarming. This means that, in fact, Iraq will, in effect, win the Gulf War. If they continue down this path, there will be a compromise solution. Iraq will be allowed to maintain the weapons of mass destruction." Do you know who said that? MORRIS: No. HANNITY: Scott Ritter. MORRIS: Oh, great. HANNITY: Scott Ritter, the most widely quoted person.............. ................... MORRIS: And, by the way, Saddam Hussein has never had a weapon he didn't use. HANNITY: Dick, you make a great point that I've been making now for a long time. I made a big point in my book about this. FDR, Truman, JFK -- they understood the nature of evil in the world. Gore, Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton -- they don't understand. They're not in the tradition of those Democrats. And we see this now with the playing pol -- four years ago, politically, when it helped Bill Clinton, they supported the use of force. Now they don't support it............... foxnews.com

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 7:58:57 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Following is a transcribed excerpt from Fox News Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002...................... SNOW: All right, Scott Ritter is in Baghdad today. He addressed the Iraqi parliament, such as it is. I want to play a quote from him and then get your response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: The rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government and others has not to date been backed up by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction or has links to terror groups responsible for attacking the United States. Void of such facts, all we have is speculation. (END VIDEO CLIP) SNOW: Is that right? POWELL: We have facts, not speculation. Scott is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I'm afraid that I would not place the security of my nation or the security of our friends in the region on that kind of an assertion by somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any longer. There is no doubt in my mind that he does have capability and he is trying to improve that capability and build upon that capability. And it's debatable as to how much and where it is, and all sorts of questions can be raised, and they should be raised and should be debated; this is an important issue. But there can be no debate about the fact that he is in violation of the obligations he entered into at the end of Gulf War. And if Scott is right, then why are they keeping inspectors out? If Scott is right, why don't they say any time, any place, anywhere, bring them in, everybody come in, we are clean? The reason is, they're not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what we're going to do about it. And that's why it's been the policy of this government to insist that Iraq be disarmed in accordance with the terms of the relevant U.N. resolutions. And we believe the best way to do that is with a regime change, and that's why that has been U.S. policy, even though it's not United Nations policy.............. foxnews.com

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 9:59:18 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 89467

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the Top Story tonight. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter in the center of the storm. He believes Iraq is incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this week, I said Mr. Ritter was avoiding The Factor. I was obviously wrong, because here he is. Well, we appreciate you coming in, Mr. Ritter. SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you. O'REILLY: Now, I want to do an interview with you that's different from the interviews, the hundreds of them, that you've done in the last six months. I want to walk through a number of items very specifically, all right? No theory, no opinion, just fact. Earlier this week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies issued a report. You're familiar with this organization, right? RITTER: Yes, I am. O'REILLY: Is it true that they don't have an ideology, no axe to grind? RITTER: That's what people say about it. O'REILLY: All right. Do you believe that? RITTER: No. O'REILLY: All right. You believe they're what? RITTER: I believe that they are staffed by people who have prior affiliations with governments and organizations, and they bring these affiliations into them, and that is part of their psyche. O'REILLY: Do you believe that they're telling the truth in their study? RITTER: Oh, I don't believe anything in their study is false. I believe every word in their study. O'REILLY: Oh, so you believe the study. OK. RITTER: Sure. O'REILLY: Good, good, I'm glad to hear you say that. RITTER: Especially the way they couch all of their... O'REILLY: OK, fine. RITTER: ... all of their, all their phraseology. O'REILLY: As long as you believe the study... RITTER: The problem... O'REILLY: ... has credibility in your eyes... RITTER: Sure. O'REILLY: ... we can continue along this road. The study says that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained radioactive material. Do you believe that? RITTER: Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months if it obtained... O'REILLY: Radioactive material. RITTER: Well, it's not radio -- I guess fissile material, should be. O'REILLY: OK. Do you believe that to be true? RITTER: I've said that in the past. O'REILLY: OK. All right. Then that's pretty scary, is it not? RITTER: It's frightening. O'REILLY: OK, good. The study goes on to say that Iraq at this point has a stockpile of biological weapons, including anthrax. Do you believe that? RITTER: There's nothing in that report that substantiates that statement. O'REILLY: But do you believe it? RITTER: I have no way of knowing. O'REILLY: All right. So you don't know one way or the other. This report says they do have anthrax... RITTER: And I believe that report didn't provide any basis for that statement. O'REILLY: OK, I'm just saying, this is what the report said. I didn't do the report. RITTER: No, fine. O'REILLY: I believe they're depending on scientists who've come out of there. But they say they have anthrax. They also say that Iraq emerged from the war with Iran with the largest and most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Middle East. Is that true? RITTER: I don't know, if you compare and contrast with the Israeli chemical capability, maybe not. But... O'REILLY: All right. But they do have a formidable... RITTER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) very advanced... O'REILLY: ... chemical... RITTER: They've had -- as of 1990, 1991, yes. O'REILLY: OK. Do you think they got rid of it? RITTER: We destroyed it. O'REILLY: You destroyed some of it. RITTER: We destroyed most of it. O'REILLY: All right. So -- but do you think they built it back up in the last three years? RITTER: Have no way of knowing. O'REILLY: All right. Possible? RITTER: Sure, I testified to the U.S. Senate within six months of the inspectors removed from Iraq, Iraq could reconstitute significant aspects of its programs. O'REILLY: OK. So they got mustard gas... RITTER: They could. O'REILLY: ... they got Sarin... RITTER: Could. O'REILLY: Yes, possibly. RITTER: Possibly. O'REILLY: Probably? RITTER: Don't know. No, actually probably no, because if they had it -- see, these are things -- you don't produce weapons of mass destruction by pulling them out of a black hat like a white rabbit in a magic show. O'REILLY: Right. RITTER: There is infrastructure that is required. O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). RITTER: Iraq would have to reconstitute this infrastructure, and as a 12-year veteran of intelligence services who knows what the capabilities are, we would detect this. O'REILLY: All right. But we say that they have. The United States says this. I'm using, I'm trying to get out of the United States here... RITTER: But we don't put any evidence to back it up. We say, but no evidence. O'REILLY: Well, OK, but intelligence information is basically -- you don't say, Lenny got it, we have a mole over there who's calling us up. Come on, you know the game, they're not going to identify who's giving them the information. RITTER: No, but I also know that, you know, I mean, you sat there and criticized the prime minister of Canada, the prime minister of Germany, for not siding with us. O'REILLY: Correct. RITTER: And saying, you know, Hey, guys, get on board. O'REILLY: Correct. RITTER: What they're saying is, Let's get some facts. Now, we have classified relationships with both Canada and Germany. We have the means of sharing classified intelligence... O'REILLY: Not top-secret information. RITTER: Absolutely. O'REILLY: No, no. RITTER: Absolutely. O'REILLY: No. RITTER: I know that for a fact. O'REILLY: If it's top-secret information, it's there to protect informants. Now, they have told, and I know this to be fact, Gerhard Schroeder and Chretien that their informants have told them this. But they're simply not believing it. RITTER: But what I'm saying is... O'REILLY: But let's, let's continue... RITTER: ... why are we -- why -- Well... O'REILLY: ... along this line, because this is a much more interesting discussion than theory. I don't want theory. Ballistic missiles, this study says that they have a force of about a dozen 650 kilometer range missiles. You believe that? RITTER: No. Absolutely not. O'REILLY: OK, so you don't believe that at all. RITTER: No, because I ran the... O'REILLY: You think you're... RITTER: ... ballistic missile effort in Iraq... O'REILLY: OK. You don't think they have... RITTER: ... and I know what I've done. O'REILLY: ... any ballistic missiles. RITTER: No. O'REILLY: All right. Do you believe that they have the capability to meet with an al Qaeda representative in Damascus, say, or any other capability, and hand over dangerous materials to them? Do you believe Iraq has the capability to do that? RITTER: The capability? O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), could they do that? RITTER: If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... O'REILLY: Right. RITTER: ... and if Iraq wanted to hand it over to an al Qaeda terrorist... O'REILLY: Right. RITTER: ... do they have the capability... O'REILLY: Right. RITTER: ... of meeting with a -- Sure, hypothetically, sure. O'REILLY: OK. Good. Now, the Czechs, and we had the Czech ambassador on here, swear that the top, top espionage guy in Iraq met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, they swear it happened. Do you believe that? RITTER: I'll go with the FBI. O'REILLY: The FBI now backtracks and said what the Czechs say is true. RITTER: Well, that I'm not -- Look, if the FBI says the meeting took place, I'm -- you know, who... O'REILLY: OK. RITTER: I don't know... O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)... RITTER: ... I wasn't there. O'REILLY: Right, right, right, right. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) put the puzzle together now. You admit that a lot of the things in this study are true. You admit that he could give weapons to al Qaeda if he wanted to, and you admit that the Czechs may be accurate. All of those things you have said. Now, here's the end point. He violated the Gulf War treaty, everybody knows that, you know that, I know that, correct? RITTER: Sure, Saddam was not in -- the Iraqi government... O'REILLY: Right, he violated the treaty... RITTER: ... is not in compliance. O'REILLY: ... that 299 Americans died to forge. RITTER: The war that I fought in, let's remember that, OK? O'REILLY: Correct, correct, yes, you were a Marine. RITTER: Darn right I was. O'REILLY: Yeah. And that's why I'm just stunned that you don't want to forcibly remove this guy who's basically thumbed his nose at the United States and said, Yes, I'm not going to abide by this treaty, I'm not going to abide by it. If I were you, I'd be outraged. RITTER: Well, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- what makes you think I'm not outraged? O'REILLY: Because you're saying that we should not go in and forcibly remove him, that's why? RITTER: Look, you can't -- there's no linkage between the two. Saddam is... O'REILLY: Saddam has violated the treaty... RITTER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE)... O'REILLY: ... if he violates a treaty, then we have a right to go in and remove him... RITTER: You mean, go to war? O'REILLY: Absolutely. He violated the treaty of the war we fought. RITTER: Well, OK. Can I ask you to consider two documents? A, the Constitution of the United States of America. And in the Constitution it clearly states that when the United States enters into international agreements, those international agreements have the weight of law in the United States. One such international agreement is the United Nations charter, of which we are signatories, and which we helped forge and frame this document. O'REILLY: OK, what does this have to do with the discussion? RITTER: Because the United Nations charter clearly sets forth those conditions under which nations may go to war, and it prohibits any nation seeking out to remove another nation... O'REILLY: Did the United Nations OK the Gulf War? Did they? RITTER: Yes. O'REILLY: OK. Did they violate, did Saddam Hussein violate the treaty there? RITTER: Excuse me, the Gulf War... O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)... RITTER: ... was about the liberation of Kuwait, not the... O'REILLY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), no, no, the Gulf War... RITTER: ... removal of Saddam Hussein. O'REILLY: ... was against Iraq. RITTER: No, it was about the liberation of Kuwait, plain and simple. O'REILLY: The United Nations said the war was legitimate and legal to fight against Saddam Hussein... RITTER: No, to liberate Kuwait. It's very specific. O'REILLY: Did not -- it did not say that we didn't -- we couldn't defeat Saddam Hussein to throw him out. He has violated that treaty. We are legally entitled to go back. Last question. You have got... RITTER: Well, first, I disagree with that statement. O'REILLY: All right, you disagree, fine. RITTER: And someone who's fought in that war... O'REILLY: You can disagree, we'll let the audience decide. RITTER: Well, let's just be clear. The reason why we didn't even think about going to Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War is, we had no mandate. The mandate as set forth by the council. The war was about the liberation of Kuwait, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. Let's be very clear about that. O'REILLY: There wasn't clear wording said we have to remove him, but we were entitled to do that if we felt he was a continuing threat, which he obviously has been. RITTER: No, the international community... O'REILLY: Obviously has been. RITTER: ... is entitled to remove... O'REILLY: All right, whatever. RITTER: ... remain seized of the issue. O'REILLY: Last question, and this is a very important question. You've been criticized for taking $400,000 from a guy who's friendly with Saddam Hussein to make a film. Should you have done that? RITTER: You're damn right I should have. O'REILLY: And why is that? RITTER: Because the film is the most objective, independent analysis of the weapons inspection process. If the American public saw this film, it would answer many of the questions they have about, A, what was accomplished by the inspectors? And B, why inspectors aren't in Iraq today. O'REILLY: OK. But you know how it looks. RITTER: I don't care how it looks. I care about the information. I care about what I know. Frankly speaking, people can spin a situation any way they want to. O'REILLY: Sure they can. RITTER: You're the anti-spin meister. O'REILLY: I am. RITTER: OK, I am about telling the truth. I am about assiduously adhering to the facts. O'REILLY: All right. RITTER: I made a movie that's the best movie out there. It's not an Iraqi movie... O'REILLY: But it was financed by a... RITTER: By an American citizen. O'REILLY: ... who is friendly with Saddam Hussein. How much of the $400,000 did you pay yourself in salary? RITTER: Twenty percent. O'REILLY: OK, so you paid yourself $80,000. RITTER: Of which $38,000 was poured back into the film, because the budget for the film was $400,000, and the film actually went to $458,000. O'REILLY: All right. RITTER: And I still carry a considerable debt. O'REILLY: Mr. Ritter, I... RITTER: If you think I made money on this film, think again. O'REILLY: OK. We appreciate your candor in coming in here and taking the fire. RITTER: Thank you. O'REILLY: All right. And we'll let the audience decide. foxnews.com

To: elpolvo who wrote (6344)	9/13/2002 10:03:12 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

How would you feel were it Clinton who wanted ot oust Sadam? Following is the full transcript of Fox News Channel's David Asman's interview with former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Sept. 12, 2002. Since this transcript is based on closed-captioning feeds, Fox News cannot verify the absolute accuracy of each statement. DAVID ASMAN, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: President Bush at the U.N. today mapping out Saddam Hussein's violations of U.N. resolutions. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who at one time warned in similar tones about Saddam Hussein, sounds different now. The question is why. Scott Ritter joins us here in our studio. Good to have you, sir. SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thanks a lot. ASMAN: Let me read to you a couple of quotes. I'm sure you've heard it before, but these are from four years ago, when you sounded about Saddam Hussein not very much different from the way President Bush did today at the U.N. This one is from this week -- August 30, 1998 -- "Six months is a very reasonable time scale for Iraq to resume weapons capabilities." The second two are from Good Morning America also in August of '98. First, "Iraq's job is to avoid bringing the world's attention to the fact they've retained these weapons," and then, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Sounds like Saddam Hussein is very dangerous and could mount a chemical strike right now. RITTER: And what point are you trying to make? ASMAN: Do you disagree with that in any way, shape or form? RITTER: I don't disagree with anything I've ever said. Why in God's name would I disagree with something I've said? ASMAN: Then how is it that people have gotten the impression that since those statements were made, you're now being somewhat apologetic for what Saddam Hussein is doing? RITTER: Forget those people. Let's deal with the facts. First of all, it's a matter of perception. When I resigned, I didn't resign as someone beating the drum of war. I'm not out there promoting war. I didn't promote war when I was a weapons inspector. I'm not promoting war now. I'm promoting the process of weapons inspections as mandated by the Security Council. So I resigned in protest from being unable to do the job of completing the disarmament of Iraq. ASMAN: So you think Saddam Hussein still has these chemical weapons capabilities? RITTER: No, I said Saddam Hussein has the potential of having chemical weapons capability. We haven't completely confirmed the final disposition of these capabilities and they must be of concern. But to say that Saddam Hussein retains chemical weapons -- there's a big difference between weapons and capability. ASMAN: You're talking about delivering the arsenal he has. RITTER: I'm saying Saddam Hussein has the capability, inside Iraq today -- Iraq has the capability to convert aspects of its civilian infrastructure to reconstitute chemical weapons. Six months is not an unreasonable time. I said it then and I'm saying it now. ASMAN: So he might still have all of those barrels of evil stuff, the biochemical weapons? RITTER: It's not a matter of "still have," he might have been able to make those weapons in the intervening time. ASMAN: Right, and chances are he has those weapons but he doesn't have the power to deliver them? RITTER: No, first of all, I never said he has them and I'm not saying chances are he has them, I'm saying there's a possibility he could reconstitute this capability and that's why we have to have inspectors in place. You can't go from the fact we can't confirm the final disposition of important elements of his program -- which is the case -- to suddenly giving Saddam Hussein massive strike capability that threatens the United States of America. You can't make that leap. It is something you have to be concerned about. But the problem with what Bush is doing today is that he's made that leap, void of any intelligence information to substantiate that. ASMAN: But it's not void of actions, Mr. Ritter. It is particularly in light of what happened on September 11, 2001 and the fear that there are evil people out there, some of whom may have consorted with Saddam Hussein in the past, that would get together and use some of these chemical weapons -- if they're in Iraq -- on U.S. citizens. RITTER: But this is a purely hypothetical situation. Show me where is the link. ASMAN: September 11, 2001 was not hypothetical, nothing hypothetical at all. RITTER: Don't disgrace the death of those 3,000 people by bringing Iraq into the equation. ASMAN: We know there are people out there willing to do the dirty deed and we also know Saddam Hussein has had contacts with these people in the past. RITTER: No, you don't know that. ASMAN: We know from Czech intelligence. Czech intelligence says that an Iraqi met with Mohammed Atta twice. RITTER: What does the CIA and FBI say? ASMAN: The FBI and CIA say the situation is not clear but Czech intelligence says it is. And why it is that the only person, only Arab leader that Usama bin Laden likes and approves of and speaks highly of is Saddam Hussein, why? RITTER: That's an absurdity, David. Usama bin Laden in 1991 was offering his services to confront Saddam Hussein. Usama bin Laden has issued fatwas against Saddam Hussein. ASMAN: We talked to representatives of Al Qaeda here in 1998 shortly after the bombings of those embassies in Africa. The only Arab leader -- I spoke to them personally, the only Arab leader they were willing to praise, not to condemn, was Saddam Hussein. Why? RITTER: Well, I'm just telling you that the fact of the matter is the Iraqi government -- and I'm not an apologist for the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein is the most brutal dictator I can think of today and from my lips to God's ear, I wish he was dead -- but the fact of the matter is Iraq is a secular dictatorship that has struggled against Islamic fundamentalists for 30 years. ASMAN: Exactly. So why it that Saddam Hussein supports this secular individual? RITTER: Well, first of all, I don't think that case has been made. ASMAN: It's been made not only by Usama bin Laden himself but by representatives of Al Qaeda to me personally on air. We've got the tape. I can show it to you. RITTER: I'm not disputing that. ASMAN: You were disputing it. RITTER: I'm not disputing that people have sat before you and said these things. I'm disputing that Al Qaeda is somehow in allegiance with Saddam Hussein. ASMAN: Why shouldn't they be? They both want the destruction of the United States. You don't think they do? You don't think Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein want the destruction of the United States? RITTER: Let's keep Usama bin Laden out of this equation because I'm not linking them. ASMAN: He's directly a part of it. That's the point, Scott, the fact that Usama bin Laden has had, or is suspected to have had contacts, well, just a suspicion when thousands of American lives are at risk. Isn't a suspicion alone enough to really act upon? RITTER: It's enough for us to be extremely concerned about, but when you want to take action, there has to be justification found in an international law. Let's remember there's two documents every American -- ASMAN: Isn't that what just happened today when George Bush went to the United Nations? RITTER: No, actually George Bush was dictating to the United Nations, not trying to work with the United Nations. ASMAN: In what way did he dictate? RITTER: He said that you must hold Iraq accountable for its actions and if you don't, if you fail to do so, we will step forward. ASMAN: That's not dictating -- that's just mentioning their obligations under the U.N. Charter. RITTER: Well, let's remember the United States's obligations under the U.N. Charter, which is to go to the Security Council and seek Security Council action. ASMAN: But remember who lost the war, Scott. You don't have to be told who lost the war in 1991. RITTER: I fought in the war. ASMAN: Exactly. Who lost? It was Saddam Hussein. He signed these agreements as a result of his loss so that he could keep his nation in power. RITTER: First of all, he didn't sign a single agreement. ASMAN: The conditions laid out by the U.N. were agreed to by the Iraqis. RITTER: Correct. But don't say Saddam signed the agreement. ASMAN: The point it that -- You know it's a dictatorship. Are you here to tell me Iraq is a democracy? RITTER: No. ASMAN: So Saddam Hussein clearly allowed his people to accept those documents from the U.N.? RITTER: Absolutely. ASMAN: So they were forced to accept those documents saying they would allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access -- and they didn't. Do you deny that? RITTER: First of all, it's not that black and white. We achieved a 90-95 percent level of disarmament in Iraq. We could not have done that without unfettered access. I got into the sites I needed to get to. Was it easy? Was it pretty? No. Did I achieve a certain level of disarmament? Yes. Did other inspectors achieve a certain level of disarmament? Yes. We fundamentally disarmed Iraq and that's the point that has to be made. We succeeded in eliminating the threat posed to the world by Iraq -- ASMAN: Wait a minute. Even you said 95 percent was destroyed but five percent could not be accounted for, correct? RITTER: Five to ten percent. ASMAN: That's a lot of potential biochemical weapons. RITTER: First of all, it's not just biochemical, it's across the board. ASMAN: Nevertheless, for a madman like Saddam Hussein, who you just said you'd be for getting rid of in a heartbeat, for him to have 5 percent of that arsenal is still a dangerous thing. RITTER: Again, let's put this in the proper perspective. Biological weapons -- everybody's concerned about that. Anthrax -- we suffered a horrific anthrax attack here in the United States. Iraq produced liquid bulk anthrax, that's all they ever produced, not the dry powder that we saw here in the United States. ASMAN: How are you sure about that? You're saying inspectors weren't sure of what happened. How do you know it did? RITTER: Because this is the finding of the United Nations. ASMAN: But, Scott, you just said that we're not sure. RITTER: I'm going to deal with the facts that we know of. I'm not going to get into the hypothetical. What we know is that Iraq only produced liquid bulk anthrax. There is no evidence -- ASMAN: I gotta stop you Scott. You just said we don't know that, we don't know that they didn't produce powdered form of anthrax. How do you know? How? RITTER: No, we do know that they didn't produce powdered form of anthrax. Because we inspected the facility, we did the testing on the facility. ASMAN: It could not have been a facility you didn't know about? RITTER: Well, now you're going off the map. ASMAN: The guy's got trillions of dollars' worth of oil. Couldn't he have within his -- RITTER: Has millions of dollars' worth of oil. ASMAN: Well, the reserves are trillions of dollars, if you add it up at 25 dollars a barrel. The point is he's got enough cash to do all sorts of things that we don't know about, correct? RITTER: No. Again, we deal in the world of reality. Weapons of mass destruction aren't pulled out of a black hat like a white rabbit at a magic show. They're produced in factories. There's science and technology involved. They're not produced in a hole in the ground or in a basement. It's an industrial facility, we investigated the industrial facility, anthrax, liquid bulk deteriorates after three years under ideal storage conditions. The last time he produced it, in 1991 -- we were there from '91 to '98 and never detected any evidence of production. So for Iraq to have anthrax today they would have had to rebuild these factories since the last time inspectors were there. ASMAN: 1998. You yourself said it would take six months to rebuild those facilities. So they could have built that. They could have built that four, six times over. RITTER: They could have. ASMAN: And isn't that a risk that we have to be particularly cognizant of, and if the Iraqis won't allow our inspectors unfettered access, isn't our only option to go in there and take out Saddam? RITTER: Yes. Now let's get to the bottom line here. The last time we allowed inspectors into Iraq unconditionally, with unfettered access, what happened? The United States took these inspectors and used them to spy on Saddam Hussein. ASMAN: Wait a minute, are you including your former boss Richard Butler in that category? RITTER: Richard Butler was totally complicit with it. ASMAN: Richard Butler, you're saying, was a spy for the United States, not an independent U.N. weapons inspector? RITTER: Richard Butler allowed the United States to use the United Nations weapons-inspection process as a Trojan horse to insert intelligence capabilities into Iraq, which were not approved by the United Nations and which did not facilitate the disarmament process, were instead focused on the security of Saddam Hussein and military targets. ASMAN: So you think Richard Butler was an agent of the CIA? RITTER: Don't put words in my mouth. ASMAN: I'm asking you. RITTER: Richard Butler facilitated American espionage in Iraq. Richard Butler facilitated American manipulation of the inspection process. ASMAN: With the full knowledge of what he was doing? Was he a dupe? RITTER: Well, that's a question to ask Richard Butler. I think he knew because on four occasions, from March 1998 until my resignation in August 1998, I wrote Richard Butler a memorandum saying, "Boss, if you continue down this path you are facilitating espionage. This is not what we're about and you can't let this happen." He received this memorandum and disregarded my warning and ultimately, in the end, let's ask ourselves why the inspectors aren't in Iraq today. It is not because Iraq kicked them out -- it's because the United States government through their mission in New York picked up the phone, ordered Richard Butler to withdraw the inspectors. He did so without going to the Security Council. Two days later the United States bombed Iraq using an inspection that was manipulated by the United States as justification for triggering, and using intelligence gathered by the inspectors to bomb Saddam Hussein's targets that weren't weapons-of-mass-destruction-related. Why would the Iraqis immediately roll over and say "Come on back in," unless they're given guarantees that the inspectors won't again deviate from the task? ASMAN: I have to ask this question. Why it is that we should not believe Richard Butler who was chief weapons inspector, or believe people like [unintelligible], the former nuclear scientist who worked on Saddam Hussein's campaign who says he still has an active policy to get a nuclear weapon and has other capabilities -- why should we not believe all of these other people and believe you? RITTER: Again just believe the facts. In 1998 [unintelligible] was a minor functionary there in the Iraqi nuclear program. He was brought in to head up a cell that was to do research on the Iraqi nuclear program. He came up with an $8 billion program that was found to be too expensive. He was fired and released. He was a fraud. As for Richard Butler, you have ask him why he's now distorting the truth. I can document everything I say and if you'd kindly bring Richard Butler on stage with me sometime we can have a face-to-face. ASMAN: Let's do that. We have contacts with him so let's try to do that. RITTER: The facts have not been contradicted on the point of fact regarding Iraq. U.S. News & World Report reported on Richard Butler's close cooperation with the United States. The United States government has admitted doing what I said. ASMAN: Wait a minute. The United States has admitted that they used Richard Butler as a pawn in an intelligence operation thwarting the neutral interests of the United Nations? RITTER: Yes. Read the Washington Post -- [unintelligible] Gelbart's two articles written in November. Read U.S. News & World Report from December. ASMAN: Richard Butler, as far as I know, and we can back it up, we have a good brain room here, has never admitted that he worked for U.S. intelligence to thwart the neutral interests of the United Nations. RITTER: I'm saying that Richard Butler as the executive chairman of UNSCOM -- ASMAN: Knowingly allowing them neutral reputation of the United States -- United Nations to fall by the wayside in order to work with United States intelligence is nothing that he's ever admitted to. RITTER: Well, then these four memorandums from his chief inspector responsible for squaring out these sensitive intelligence operations, four memorandums from March 1998 to August 1998 warning him that if he continues it is tantamount to espionage and -- he received these memorandums and disregarded the memorandums. He knew what he was doing. ASMAN: But you're saying you have access to information he does not have and therefore you have the ability to say this information, he was lying about it. RITTER: I'm saying when I wrote a memorandum to him [about] the program. When I confronted him with what was happening with the program, he disregarded my warnings. ASMAN: We will work our best to get Richard Butler on here. Stay with us. We have a short break. We'll be right back with him more questions on Fox in a moment. ASMAN: We're back with the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. We just took a break. You have to make sure you know all the facts. A lot of people saw you go to Iraq. They said, 'He's a traitor.' Take care from people who are sworn enemies. How does that make you feel? RITTER: Sworn enemies, that's a curious statement. ASMAN: ... They say they want death and destruction for the United States. The vice president of Iraq said it is the duty of Arabs anywhere in the world, anywhere in the world, to attack U.S. interests and U.S. individuals. This is the vice president of Iraq. You just admitted it is a dictatorship. RITTER: ... I love my country more than anything. I spent 12 years in the United States Marine Corps. I know what it means to defend this country. ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on. RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ... ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket? RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law. ASMAN: Some people say that some of this money has come from Iraqi-Americans, there's one Iraqi-American in particular, who is perhaps not pro-Saddam but at least people say he's against the U.S. position towards Iraq, that that in itself kind ... of [proves that] Iraq is giving people money to do their bidding. RITTER: ... He's a Detroit-based American businessman. An American citizen. He has family in Iraq. People have to put this in perspective. They are looking death and destruction in the face. You can't blame a guy that is trying to prevent a war. ASMAN: He has no contact whatsoever with anybody in the Iraqi government? RITTER: I didn't say that. How do you think I got the government with him? He can get me the audience. I take advantage. ... I am waging peace in the same way other people wage war -- I am trying to stop a war that doesn't need to be fought. This is not anti-American. [Unintelligible] ... put my life on the line for my country. And I would do so again if the cause is just, if the cause is founded. If there is a threat worth dying for, make the case, Mr. Bush. And I will support your war with Iraq to the hilt. But until you make that case, all we have is speculative rhetoric and that is not justification. ASMAN: We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. The vice president said it this week. Don't you think they are the enemy? RITTER: The situation that's evolving there's definitely an atmosphere of conflict between us and -- United States and Iraq. I'm not going to defend a damn word they say. ASMAN: You're taking money from a guy affiliated from the foreign minister/deputy prime minister. RITTER: I'm not taking any money. It's not going into my pocket. ASMAN: They paid for the trip to Iraq. RITTER: It was paid for by the Public Institute of Accuracy. ASMAN: Just to clear this up for the record, this Iraqi businessman, he is friends with Aziz, he knows people in the Iraqi government. What is he paying to you, anything at all? Are you getting any money? RITTER: [Unintelligible] ... Is there a hand up my back moving my mouth? No. ... not associated with or affiliated with any particular government outside of the United States. The point is we are not being used as a mouthpiece as some people say that Iraqi-American businessman is. You yourself said he's friends with and ... essentially one of Saddam Hussein's henchman. ASMAN: He's a henchman of Saddam Hussein. RITTER: He's had to say things that are [a] total fabrication. I am trying to facilitate peace by making the case a for peace and the only way to do that, you can't get into Iraq unless you have the Iraqi government open the door. Aziz can open the door. If you want to condemn me for making a case so I can diffuse a war-like situation that is going to put hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk, then condemn me. I don't care. ... I am doing everything I can [to ensure] that we exhaust every avenue possible short of war before we go to war. ASMAN: When was the very last time you received any intelligence about what Iraq is doing from the United States government? RITTER: [Unintelligible] ASMAN: It is conceivable, is it not, that they have created in the four years since we have been there quite a stockpile of chemical [and] biological weapons. RITTER: It is conceivable they could have created chemical weapons. ASMAN: Why do you think it is that they did that? RITTER: Detectable ... ASMAN: Under what conditions? RITTER: I don't want to get any sources. Any professional will tell you [there are] ways to detect the -- the efforts by a nation, especially a nation like Iraq which had its infrastructure diminished, weapons of mass destruction capacity they would have to reconstitute, acquire technology, they would have to reconfigure technology. ASMAN: You know all the back-door channels. Oil-for-food program and all the other ways in which to help Iraq to get the cash they need to do what you're saying. RITTER: I worked with the Israeli government for four years setting up capability to monitor Iraqi -- they tracked them and monitored them. I'm not doing it anymore. I know the Israelis are, [and the] United States is. ... Make the case, Mr. President, make the case. ASMAN: He made a case ... the question comes down to this, Scott Ritter, who do you trust more, President Bush and the case he is making against Saddam Hussein, or the rhetoric coming out of Iraq? RITTER: I'd like to put it this way. Who do I hold accountable, the president of Iraq or the president of the United States. I hold my government accountable to the facts. I hold my government to a higher standard than I do Saddam Hussein. I am an American citizen who believes in the Constitution and believes in my obligation as a citizen to hold my government [accountable]. ASMAN: I'm a journalist. ... which information do you think is more reliable right now? That coming out of Iraq or that coming out of President Bush? RITTER: ... The bottom line is I believe that the United States government -- the Bush administration is deliberately distorting the record in regards to weapons of mass destruction. I have trouble believing what they are saying. Not that I believe what Saddam Hussein is doing. Not that I believe Saddam Hussein more. I don't trust based upon my extensive experience what is coming from the Bush administration. They need to make a better case with substantive fact. ASMAN: Scott Ritter, we do thank you for coming on today. RITTER: Thank you very much. foxnews.com