Scott Ritter, definition follows:

The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.

McG:
Since Ritter was right about the WMD's (or lack thereof)...............?

maybe i should watch the news more but this scandal of the decade sure is quiet.

I think the reason it is pretty quiet is because there are too many people from all sides of the political isles who probably were tied up in it. Those on the right can bring up that Rich or whatever guy that clinton pardoned at the eleventh hour of his presidency along with a bunch of other people and those of us on the left can bring up Cheney. In any event it seems like we in the US can't really be throwing stones at the UN. (which we are a part of but...)

Quote:

These 'after the fact' 'quotes' are always fascinating, since I don't recall Ritter saying anything like this in his testimony before Congress.

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 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.

The French have been saying for awhile -- and I think the American government has come around to this view -- that the only way to disarm a country against its will is to occupy it.

Yes Ritter has been quite vocal in his criticisms and thereby a media darling who was much in demand by the anti-administration media when this was still a hot story.

Now the next question. Why would Ritter be given so much credence in his testimony, and all those other inspectors who neither agree with him nor back up his story are pretty much ignored?

Great site EhBeth....thanks.

I didn't read every single word of every interview, but did read enough to glean that the other inspectors were not on the same page with Scott Ritter. I appreciated the comments they did make and think they all had a pretty good handle on the situation.