Rascal, you seem to be the poster most interested in Ritter. Here is an analysis of him from today's "WSJ.com"
BAGHDAD JANE
Ritter of Arabia
How did a tough Marine become an apologist for Saddam Hussein?
BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:01 a.m.
On the eve of the Gulf War, a young Marine named Scott Ritter wanted to quit. But when President George H.W. Bush began dispatching troops to the Persian Gulf, Mr. Ritter changed his mind. "I can't leave the Marine Corps when my country's getting ready to go to war," he said later. "That's a dishonorable thing to do."
Today, as a second President Bush prepares the country for war in the same land, Scott Ritter is seemingly doing PR for Saddam Hussein, appearing anywhere he can get an audience to dispute the contention that Saddam is a threat to the world. Mr. Ritter shows up on National Public Radio, "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," CBS, ABC, NBC and each of the all-news cable networks. Prominent newspapers--the Boston Globe, Newsday, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times--have published his rants. He is quoted approvingly by members of Congress and world leaders. Indeed, Scott Ritter has probably become the leading opponent of intervention in Iraq.
But he wasn't always a dove.
Mr. Ritter worked in intelligence at Central Command during the Gulf War, and shortly thereafter joined UNSCOM, the U.N. team assigned to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. In his seven years in that role, Mr. Ritter earned a reputation as a tough, some would say belligerent, inspector. The Iraqis hated him, and complained each time UNSCOM sent the American "cowboy" inspector. To the extent that U.N. inspectors were able to partially disarm Saddam, Mr. Ritter deserves much of the credit.
But by 1998, Iraqi obstruction of inspectors reached absurd levels. Mr. Ritter ripped the Clinton administration for its fear of confronting Saddam, whom he described as a "real and meaningful threat." He resigned his post in very public protest.
In congressional testimony that September, Mr. Ritter declared that Iraq was "winning its bid to retain its prohibited weapons," and cautioned about the future. "Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated," he testified, "Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months." The inspections ended in December. That month, Mr. Ritter amplified his earlier warnings in an article in The New Republic:
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed," he declared. "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. These agents are 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."
Then, at precisely the time Saddam was to have reconstituted his arsenal according to Mr. Ritter's projection, the former inspector flipped. "Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability," Mr. Ritter declared. "Iraq represents a threat to no one."
What explains Scott Ritter's change of heart? Only he knows, of course. But as his views have changed, he's taken money from a source who has led many to question his objectivity.
Over the past two years, Mr. Ritter has taken $400,000 from Shakir Al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam, to produce a documentary called, "In Shifting Sands." Mr. Ritter concedes that Mr. Al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." And that may be an understatement. Mr. Al-Khafaji runs propaganda sessions for Saddam. Euphemistically known as "expatriate conferences," the biannual gatherings decry the "terrorism and genocide" the U.S. commits against the Iraqi people through U.N. sanctions.
Mr. Ritter claims Mr. Al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film project, a claim he undermines by openly admitting that his benefactor is responsible for arranging Mr. Ritter's interviews with high-ranking Iraqi government officials, including chief propagandist, Tariq Aziz. Even before his project was completed, Mr. Ritter predicted at a press conference that "the U.S. will definitely not like this film." These contacts no doubt helped Mr. Ritter earlier this month, when he returned to Baghdad and became the first American to speak before the Iraqi National Assembly.
"There are those who wish Iraq harm regardless of the circumstances or costs, and many of these currently reside in the government of the United States," he told the Iraqis. "We must find a way to overcome the politics of fear and those who practice it. The best way to do this is to embrace the truth. In regards to the current situation between Iraq and the United States, the truth is on the side of Iraq."
Mr. Ritter's arguments lately have deteriorated, from discrepant to disturbing. On Dec. 7, in a speech delivered at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, Mr. Ritter suggested that Saddam would be justified in working with al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. government building.
Here is Mr. Ritter's take on the Prague meetings between an Iraqi spy and Mohamed Atta, as transcribed by the Center: "What it appears transpired was that the Iraqi intelligence officer spoke with Mohamed Atta at length about an attack, but it was an attack on a radio transmission tower of Radio Free Europe in Prague, Czechoslovakia. If you're the Iraqi government and you're looking at the Iraqi National Congress (the prominent opposition group), they are a legitimate enemy. Indeed, you could make the case that the Radio Free Europe transmission tower, under international law, is a legitimate target."
At times, Mr. Ritter seems confused about what, exactly, he should be saying. In one sentence he'll declare Iraq "fundamentally disarmed," and in the same interview argue that Saddam would be a fool to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction because his neighbors won't get rid of theirs.
Nothing will keep Mr. Ritter from sharing his views on the possibility of Saddam's nuclear arsenal. In an interview from Baghdad, Mr. Ritter was asked about a New York Times exposé on the Iraqi government's procurement of aluminum pipes. These pipes, say weapons experts, are precisely those needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. No one, of course, other than Iraq insiders can be sure that those pipes would be used for that purpose.
But Scott Ritter confidently says he knows that they will not. "Thousands of aluminum pipes, and we're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum pipes? This is patently ridiculous. These are aluminum pipes coming in for civilian use. They are not being transferred to a covert nuclear processing plant or any covert nuclear activity whatsoever."
With such assurances, who needs inspectors?
Mr. Hayes is a staff writer for The Weekly Standard.
opinionjournal.com |
