Thanks for clarifying FB, I understand your viewpoint better now. Sorry if I misunderstood. The spying issue is certainly a valid discussion point. BTW, I wouldn't offend your intelligence by thinking that you quoted Ritter. I just saw him in a clip where he called Butler a liar to his face. Butler was incredulous, stated 'well thats just sad, just sad'. Ritter was squirming in his chair.
I don't recall a mention of fallout or any other reason why they thought an attack on a nuclear facility was "going too far". I do remember that immediately following their "going too far" remark was the lovely caveat "at this time".
Here is a report of some of the things that were happening in the Kurdish areas. <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2149499.stm">Al-Qaeda' influence grows in Iraq</a>
Thanks for digging up that interview, Cohen. "Very impressive" indeed. I still have absolutely no clue why he's flipped like this.
I don't know either, unless he feels compelled to be in the spotlight. He's seems too passionate for it to only be about money. Even though it would have complicated the situation, I was kind of hoping that the guy was on the level. We need patriots willing to buck the system and 'out' political maneuvers; too bad he isn't one.
Frankly, I don't see that Ritter has done a 180. I don't think people are listening that closely to what he's saying right now. He says he does think that Iraq has chem and maybe bio weapons. He says that Iraq did try to thwart the investigations in the 90's. He says he does not trust the Iraqi govt and does think the world would be a better place if Saddam kicked the bucket. This is what he's saying now. He's also a card-carrying republican and voted for Bush this last election. He's passionately against war, very much against a pre-emptive strike or unilateral invasion by the US. He's was saying on the Today show earlier that anyone who thinks that Saddam has nuclear capability is crazy. That takes incredible technological sophistication. You can't just go buy some uranium on the black market and viola, you've got nuclear WMD capability. He's angry that the US is readying to strike when there isn't specific evidence of WMD, that we're going to go to war for what in his eyes is domestic politics. Where I'm seeing conflict between what he's saying now vs. 1998 is the spying thing. I'm not seeing any mention of the spying accusation stuff in his 98 interviews- maybe that's because Iraq was accusing him of spying, the FBI was, I don't know why that's become a major part of his story these days as opposed to 98. But none of that matters a whole lot now. I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but I agree with them that the burden of evidence is on Iraq, not the US. Iraq is the one who signed the agreement with the UN. It's up to Iraq to prove that they don't have weapons, not the US to prove that they do. Look, them's the breaks when you lose a war. Saddam had his ass handed to him on a plate in the Gulf War. You're worried about spies in the inspections? Tough ****. You lost. Here's a headline from MSNBC: NEW YORK, Sept. 13 — Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on Friday rejected the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors as demanded by Washington, saying the move would not avert a U.S. military attack on Baghdad.. Good point, really. From their point of view, they shouldn't even bother with the inspections since the US is going to obliterate them anyway, and they'll survive a little bit longer if they don't have inspectors destroying all their weapons first. They're never going to let a team in. The US is building a significant base in Qatar. This is going down. I'm going to pray that this is a short conflict, with as little death as possible.
1. specific evidence of WMD...does he think they're gonna just give us that info?? his position HAS changed..it most definitely has changed...and we're not the only ones pointing it out...richard butler called him a liar this morning... 2. ok...so iraq rejects un arms inspectors...is this enough for the UN yet??? even if we assume they're taking the position you say they're taking, they're doing so in violation of the UN...so is that enough, already??? france, china, others -- what say you??
Those of you that saw Clinton on the Letterman show the other night, did you take notice when he said off the cuff that he would be really surprised if the whole operation took more than a week, two weeks? That floored me. It strikes me as true, because he just said it casually in the moment, and doesn't really have any agenda. And it makes sense, after seeing what we did in Afghanistan. I remember a year ago a lot of the analysts saying how the Afghanistan operation could take a long time, these guys are experienced, entrenched, in their native territory, the USSR couldn't do it in years, etc. We obliterated them in a month or two and could have almost eliminated Al Qaeda if we commited more guys to the ground at Tora Bora. And Iraq has infrastructure. Use intelligence to do the targeting, and we could annihilate most major operational capability in a very short time. With the head chopped off, most of the 'army' would flee or surrender like last time, leaving only the most loyal of the republican guard and whatever WMD the puSaddam might deploy in a final middle finger salute to the world. That scares me. It also scares me that he may intentionally engage in ground warfare in populated areas. Isn't it just crazy that the US has this power? Can you imagine how frightening we must be to the rest of the world? It's like having the Death Star. We can just destroy an entire regime like *that.*
Nolen -- interesting point...i mean you certainly should never take an adversary lightly...but i too am reminded of russians telling us we'd be in for a big surprise in afghanistan...and hearing of how tough saddam's elite units were back in the gulf war...those guys ultimately were surrendering to news crews! i didn't hear clinton say that...but it's really interesting to know he did.
I remember a year ago a lot of the analysts saying how the Afghanistan operation could take a long time, these guys are experienced, entrenched, in their native territory, the USSR couldn't do it in years, etc. We obliterated them in a month or two and could have almost eliminated Al Qaeda if we commited more guys to the ground at Tora Bora. We didn't invade Afghanistan. We bombed the hell out of it and let the Northern Alliance do all the on-the-ground work there - we don't have a Northern Alliance this time to do the hard work for us. Second, the Taliban isn't dead. They retreated to Pakistan and are in the process of reorganizing (again, all this is from George Friedman) and rebuilding. For the Northern Alliance, that war is very long from over, unfortunately. Invading Iraq will not involve just bombing them. All they have to do is move all their troops into urban Baghdad. We're not going to bomb civilian centers, so then you create a ground war inside of a city with 2+ million civilians in it. That is NOT the type of war the US military is built for - no advance intelligence and no airstrike capabilities once you get into the urban environment. That's not to say invasion is wrong, but it won't be as clean as Afghanistan, which was only clean because we let other people do the dirty work.
we'll see...they'll be prepared for the worst, i'm sure. but that preparation has proved to be pretty formidable.
Cohen,,,,awesome link to the Ritter interview. I totally forgot about that interview, but was fortunate to have seen it. Ritter was about as honest sounding as they come.
Nolen said: I'm glad to see someone is reading this carefully. 1) As you say he has always acknowleged that Sadam was trying to hide the weapons, but he doesn't believe he was succeeding, though it made it difficult. 1) Ritter never said Iraq doesn't have some of these weapons. He is saying 90 to 95% of the weapons have been destroyed. 2) He is partly pissed because he thinks that our monkeying around with spying kept the job from being done. 3) He views a war with Iraq just to remove Sadam Hussein as being against UN Resolutions. He felt used when he realized that was the US agenda. 4) He maintains regime change was always the goal of th US and that they were only pretending to be primarily interested in the weapons issue. 5) As far as motivation. The guy spent I believe 7 years in Iraq. He actually saw daily the suffering of the civilians and the children from our continuing bombing and sanctions. I believe that he looked forward to completing his work and the lifting of the sanctions so that these innocents could stop dying. 6) Who knows maybe even some of the belligerent posters on this board would feel diferently once they actually saw the innocents dying, instead of reading articles by prowar neocon intellectuals who are trying to advance inhumane geopolitical goals.
For those who seek the truth on this issue and not just a simple he's wrong and a traitor. Transcript of Scott Ritter's Testimony for the May 3, 2000 Congressional Briefing: Note: X's denote difficult to transcribe audio Transcript provided by Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) Thank you very much Congressman Conyers for the kind words of introduction. I sit before you in awe of the intellectual and moral integrity of the two gentlemen to my left. I think everybody in this room should pay heed to what they have said about the situation in Iraq. I cannot add to what they have said. The XXXXX of sanctions alone apparently has not grabbed the imagination of the American people. Apparently, the subject of the deaths of four thousand, five thousand, six thousand, however many thousand Iraqi children under the age of five, has not shocked the American public into doing something. Mr. Halliday has just set out some ideas, some concepts about moving this issue forward, but frankly speaking none of this has a chance of succeeding so long as it is XXXXXX It is very important that Congress be apprised of this threat and that Congress be apprised of the situation in Iraq. I sit before you as an unlikely ally in this cause. I'm very conservative, Marine Corp.- trained, a Republican. And yet this not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This is an American issue. So I sit before you--[Applause]--so I sit before you today as an American and an American with a unique perspective. We have to overcome the concern that exists-and it is a justified concern-what will happen if sanctions are lifted? Will we be not or will we not be empowering this brutal dictatorship that exists in Iraq? Will we not be coddling a dictator and giving him the means of reconstituting the weapons of mass destruction programs I and many others like me struggled so long to rid the world of. Will Iraq not immediately become or resume its role as international pariah by threatening its neighbors. This is the question, frankly speaking, that you-members of Congress--must address to your constituents. And it's one of the reasons why the issue of sanctions has not caught hold. Prior to the Gulf War, the United Sates spent a lot of time preparing the American people for the prospect of sending its young servicemen and women abroad to fight in a war. And they did so by demonizing Saddam Hussein, a man who, frankly speaking, is very easy to demonize. He is a brutal dictator. He has a long record of human rights violations. Demonizing Saddam Hussein is not a problem. Dealing with Saddam Hussein from the perspective of fact seems to be a problem. While Saddam Hussein is a horrible leader , a brutal dictator, and is clearly repressing the innocent people of Iraq, he is not the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler. Saddam Hussein in his government in Baghdad is not capable of world or regional domination. And yet this seems to be a fear that many put forward. And frankly speaking, a lot of the blame for the perceptions that exist in this crowd and around the United States today can be laid at my doorstep. In September of 1998 when I resigned as an inspector from the United Nations Special Commission, I testified between a joint session of the United States Senate and before a joint session of the United States Congress and I spoke about Iraq. And I spoke about Iraq from the perspective of a weapons inspector. It was not my business to sit before the distinguished members of Congress and put forward a solution on how to solve the Iraqi problem. I resigned for one reason and one reason only and that is because of the manipulation by the government of the United States in the process of weapons inspections as mandated by the XXXXXX I was speaking out as a proponent of adhering to international law, to international norms, to the process that had been agreed upon by the Security Council and set forth under Chapter Seven resolutions. And I was putting out a clear warning to the members of Congress and to anybody who cared to listen that should we continue as American government to manipulate the process of weapons inspections, we will kill the weapons inspection process and we will create the scenario for something that is less than honest in terms of dealing with the problem of Iraq. I called it the illusion of arms control. Well, ladies and gentlemen, in December of 1998 apparently my warnings went unheeded because the government of the United States undertook military action called Desert Fox which had nothing to do with pushing forward the mandate of the Security Council and everything to do with pushing forward the mandate of the United States government, that is to get rid of Saddam Hussein-- not to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. And much as I had feared, this manipulation led to the demise of the inspections program. So don't judge my position today based upon the narrow interpretation of my words in September of 1998. I spoke as an inspector in defense of the international standards for dealing with Iraq as codified by Security Council resolutions. I spoke in warning that should we continue with our policy we will destroy the framework of international law. That framework has been destroyed and we must seek a way through the Security Council to reestablish that framework. The main problem is how do we de-demonize a demon--upon the basis of fact not the basis of fiction. There are many aspects to this difficult problem. I will address one. And that is weapons of mass destruction. Under the original Security Council resolutions put forward regarding Iraq's disarmament obligation, Iraq-- terms of compliance were established at one hundred percent-one hundred percent. That means that Iraq cannot be found in compliance so long as it possesses any weapons, weapons components, means of production, or raw materiel associated with these weapons of mass destruction. When I sat before Congress in 1998, Iraq had not complied with its obligations to disarm in accordance with the mandate of the Security Council. But that's not the problem facing us today. The problem facing us today is what threat does Iraq present and what threat will Iraq present should sanctions be lifted. Original resolutions against Iraq are quantitative in terms of determining Iraq's disarmament obligation-that is one hundred percent. But the reality is that, from a qualitative standpoint, when you judge Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction capabilities today, they have none. In terms of long-range ballistic missiles, missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, Iraq no longer has these missiles. They have been disarmed. In terms of missile production facilities, which were associated with the production of long range missiles, these facilities have either been destroyed, dismantled, or prior to the American military action in 1998under strict monitoring by the weapons inspectors. The same holds true with chemical weapons. In 1991 Iraq had one of the largest chemical weapons manufacturing establishments outside of the United States and Russia-that is the MUFANA STATE establishment. That establishment no longer exists today and all establishments that were capable of dual purpose activities, that is activities that could be modified for use in the production of chemical weapons, were subject to strict monitoring by weapons inspectors prior to December 1998. The same holds true for biology. The same holds true for nuclear. So when we talk about Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction threat, the answer is there is no weapons of mass destruction threat. Now when you lift economic sanctions, is Iraq immediately going to be able to reconstitute this capability? Again, as Mr. Halliday has said sanctions cannot be lifted in a vacuum. Right now the current legal framework for the lifting of sanctions is Iraqi compliance with the Security Council mandate to disarm. If the Security Council were to reevaluate Iraq's disarmament obligations along qualitative lines not quantitative, it would be very easy to come up with a finding of compliance. And once that finding of compliance has been given , if you reestablish a viable monitoring regime-not a bunch of Scott Ritter type inspections going around Iraq looking for every last nut, screw, bolt, and shred of documentation. Those aren't weapons of mass destruction. Those are things that can be used by Iraq to reconstitute a weapons of mass destruction capability but in themselves are nothing more than a bunch of garbage. And as long as you have weapons inspectors in place carrying out viable monitoring, that material is useless to Iraq. Let's talk about weapons. Let's talk about weapons production. The point is today there are no weapons of mass destruction of any meaningful scale in Iraq and should United Nations weapons inspectors be brought back into Iraq and an effective program of monitoring put in place, monitoring which includes export-import control regimes as envisioned by the Security Council in Resolution 1051, Iraq will not be able to reconstitute these weapons. This is the reality. So when you move forward--I'm talking about how to deal best with Iraq-let's move forward based upon reality. It will not be an easy problem. But sanctions cannot be lifted in a vacuum. Again, once sanctions are lifted and if weapons inspectors are put back in Iraq, I caution everybody here--this is not a solution. The solution must be far reaching, must be visionary, must be long term,/ and I applaud many of the proposals put forward by Denis Halliday. I think they should be given serious, serious looks. Thank you very much. [Voices in the Wilderness]
well...he claims it's what the administration did in 1998 in Desert Fox that caused the problem that forced him to resign. so i can lay this all on the door of the clinton administration?? again...unless i'm reading him wrong, ritter wants weapons inspectors back in...iraq said today they won't allow that...
Madmax, the record of the Clinton administraion was abysmal in its continued support for the muderous sanctions that have killed so many innocentsk in Iraq, with the Wag the Dog Bombing etc. This type of horrible policy is much more of a reason to condemn Clinton than the Monica Lewinski affair. Note Ritter is for inspctors, but against war for the sake of regime change. Actually for pr reasons, I don't think Bush emphasized regime change in his speech yesterday.
is he for war to back up UN resolutions for inspectors? if not, how does he expect enforce the admission of and cooperation with inspectors?? if there's no consequence, why in the world would saddam do anything but keep the inspectors out?? you're also saying he's against sanctions right?? and you're against sanctions right?? and you're also against war, right?? so how would you enforce it???
Actually, the US is mission capable in any environment, including urban. But going house to house involves more casualties than on an open plain, and so is not desirable. The US could destroy the Iraqi forces in the open, and Saddam will be out of power by the time Baghdad is encircled. Even if Saddam was encamped within a bunker somewhere in Baghdad with his most loyal troops, they are not going to be able to hold 2 million civilians in with them. When the civilians leave, you can pave the buildings and forget house to house. Worst case the war outside Baghdad will still go swiftly, and we take casualties in Baghdad. That would suck but its war after all. It won't be like Omaha beach.
