|
Who
Is Scott Ritter
Monty
Rainey, Junto Society
9/27/2002
As
the Networks present their fall lineups, they’ve told us what we
simply cannot miss. Fox is telling us; everyone wants to know,
"Who is John Doe." Well, not quite everyone. I’m much more
concerned about just who is Scott Ritter? Oh sure, we know who he is,
but to go back to another time in television. Will the real Scott
Ritter, please stand up? Ricky Ricardo would tell us, there is some
‘splainin to do.
Scott
Ritter, the former U.N. Weapons Inspector, has been the hot topic of
late. We even have two Scott Ritters to choose from. The Scott Ritter
of 1998, who claimed that Iraq had all the parts except for the
fissile material for constructing three nuclear bombs and the Scott
Ritter of today who claims that Iraq is a threat to no one. I’ve
heard people on both sides of the political fence try to explain
Ritter’s comments, but none of them seem to add up.
Well,
before we can figure out this Ritter character, lets examine what we
do know about Iraq’s WMD program. In October 1997, the United
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) monitoring the elimination of
Iraqi WMD’s concluded that Iraq was still trying to conceal its
bio-weapons program. In February 1998, UNSCOM concluded that Iraq was
known to possess equipment capable of producing 350 liters of weapons
grade anthrax per day. A little side note to that effect is an
estimate by the U. S. Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment
that 100 kilograms of anthrax released from a low flying aircraft over
a large city on a clear, calm night, could kill one to three million
people.
We
learned a lot about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program in 1995, when his
son-in-law and former Iraqi Minister of Industry and Minerals, Husayn
Kamil, defected to Jordan. Afterwards, Iraq admitted to have produced
8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum, and 2,200 liters
of aflatoxin. Kamil’s defection and subsequent murder did not end
Iraq’s WMD program. Qusay Hussein, Saddam’s second son, has
assumed responsibility for concealing the programs.
We
also know, from white
paper report #3050, that based on the experience of seven years of
UNSCOM inspections enough production components and data remains
hidden and enough expertise has been retained or developed to enable
Iraq to resume development and production of WMD’s. At that time,
UNSCOM believed Iraq maintained a small force of Scud-type missiles, a
small stockpile of chemical and biological munitions and the
capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical weapons
production.
These
conclusions were made after Saddam increased the number of
"sensitive" locations exempt from inspection, and his
efforts to end inspections entirely. Oh yes, in case anyone forgot,
Koffi Annan’s heralded meeting with Hussein in February of 1998
produced an agreement to allow U.N. inspectors "unrestricted
access." Sound familiar? Of course, that agreement was short
lived and in December of that same year, UNSCOM removed all inspectors
stating that Iraq was not fully cooperating. This was followed by four
days of U.S. and British air strikes. We really showed him.
Leading
up to that famed meeting between Annan and Hussein, there was a lot of
tough talk from then U.S.
President Clinton. "Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to
act," proclaimed our fine leader. Yes, the President was ready to
go to war, so he said, and White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry
was quick to remind America, "The administration has the
legislative authority needed to take action against Iraq dating back
to the 1991 resolution by the U.S. Congress that authorizes the use of
force in the Persian Gulf." I guess that authority no longer
applies to the current president.
Clinton
had plenty of bi-partisan support as well. Unlike President Bush,
Clinton found support from across the political fences. Then House
Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "In matters of international
relations, the United States is one nation." This after refusing
to comment on developments in the Lewinski sex scandal.
"I’m
worried that Saddam Hussein, not understanding America, might be
confused by the difference between headlines and national will,"
Gingrich said. "We as a people are unified in our opposition to
terrorism, and we are unified in our opposition of Saddam Hussein
developing weapons of mass destruction. And he and his advisors should
not make any decision over the next few weeks based on the idea that
America is in any way weaker or confused or unwilling to act."
N.Y.
liberal Stephen J. Solarz along with former Pentagon official Richard
Perle even went so far as to circulate a letter in Congress seeking
bi-partisan support. I’ve not heard any news of Mr. Solarz
circulating any such letters of late. Even little Tommy Daschle was in
support in 1998. He urged Mr. Clinton to "take all necessary and
appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal
to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
In
a news conference on Feb.
11, 1998, Daschle said, "Look, we have exhausted virtually
all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own
agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option
is there but to force them to do so? That’s what they’re saying.
This is the key question. And the answer is, we don’t have another
option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."
"The
U.S. should strike hard and decisively. In this instance, the
administration needs to act sooner rather than later," Sen.
Robert Byrd (D- W.V.) said. Well, Mr. Byrd droppings, it’s now much
later and nothing has changed, except for your rhetoric, and the fact
that you and your cohorts like Dodd, Leahy and Kerry have chosen to
act in their own best interest rather than that of the nation they
represent. Nothing new here.
Oh
well, my "line the liberals up and shoot them all" tirade
has gotten me off track. Back to Mr. Ritter. What exactly turned this
one time conservative hero into a seemingly schizophrenic,
multi-personality type?
In
1998, Scott Ritter was the longest serving American weapons inspector
in Iraq. He angrily resigned in protest to what he called Clinton’s
"surrender to Iraqi leadership." Ritter claimed the Clinton
administration had made a farce out of U.N. inspection efforts by
reigning in investigators who were literally "on the
doorstep" of uncovering Iraq’s hidden weapons programs. In
short, our president placed his preoccupation with his own public
image above the safety of the world, and was content to saddle
administrations to come with the responsibility and burden of
eventually dealing with the disastrous results of his own gutlessness.
At
the time of his resignation, Ritter claimed Iraq would be able to
reconstruct its chemical and biological program with in six months. He
also claimed, as mentioned earlier, that Iraq was very close to
nuclear capability.
At
his testimony to the Committee on International Relations Hearing on
"Disarming
Iraq: The Status of Weapons Inspections," Ritter claimed
Clinton’s actions had given only the "illusion of arms
control." He went on to say, "Iraq pays no price for telling
one lie after another." But that was in 1998. We all know, today,
Ritter is singing a different tune.
A
few months later, writing in the New Republic, Ritter was even more
specific. "Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects
that Iraq still has biological agents such as anthrax, botulinum
toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill
dozens of bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means
to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains
several tons of highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin gas and
mustard gas. And Iraq retains significant dual use industrial
infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large scale
chemical weapons production."
Since
Sept. 11, author Laurie Mylroie has detailed Saddam’s involvement in
the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the 1999 embassy
bombings in Africa and the 2000 attack of the USS Cole. In all of
these, Mylroie points out that Hussein partnered with Osama bin Laden.
This
hasn’t stopped the Hussein apologists from coming out of the
woodwork. Among them, the same Scott Ritter who is now claiming,
"Iraq today represents a threat to no one." There has been
much speculation as to what brought about the metamorphism in Mr.
Ritter. Most of the speculation centers on money.
We
do know Mr. Ritter was paid over $400,000 to produce a documentary
film from Iraqi-American Shakir al-Khafaji, a pro-Baghdad financier.
Ritter claims he made little or no profit from the documentary.
John
LeBoutillier wrote a piece for News
Max speculating that Ritter might still be on the CIA payroll and
working to sway otherwise pro-Bush supporters. As LeBoutillier points
out in his article, CIA Chief George Tenet, appointed during the
Clinton years, is hanging on to his position by the skin of his teeth.
Is Tenet using Scott Ritter as a front man to de-link Saddam Hussein
from his clear record as perpetrator and supporter of terror? However
today, Tenet agrees with the Scott Ritter of 1998, not the Scott
Ritter of 2002.
Whether
the truth about Scott Ritter should ever see the light of day, remains
to be seen. But there is one thing about Scott Ritter of which we can
be certain. He is a liar. We don’t know when to believe him and when
not to believe him. We don’t know who he is working for and who he
is not working for. Based on that, we cannot believe a word he says
and should stop giving the man an ounce of credibility. Ritter is
currently on any network that will give him an audience. Hopefully,
Murdock and associates will soon stop giving this man an audience to
lie to.
Monty
Rainey
Email montyrainey@juntosociety.com
Post
comments online You will have
to join this group in order to post. Due to site problems we had to
remove the site boards.
mrwisr
9/27/2002
|
