Scott Ritter-Weapons Inspector/Spy, Friend or Foe?

[G.Khan]

I'm putting this in the Military Forum as the people most likely to have anwers are proabaly on this forum.

Scott Ritter, one time hard-line weapons inspector, then claimed he was sent to Iraq to spy, has recently, in public, claimed that Iraq still has no WMD nor is it even near to having them and is now off to visit Baghdad at the invitation of Saddam Hussein.

What do those that know think of this?

[Large Dave]

"WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

Seems he's had a change of heart... nothing to do with any bitterness over his resignation I'd imagine.

[Scud-U-Like]

I think 'Limelight and Sour Grapes' would be a good title for his autobiography.

[Art Field]

After reading Large Dave's reference it is clear that Ritter is after some personal agenda as he was adamant in 98 that the weapons were there and in hiding. We can be sure that Iraq still has at the very least those selfsame weapons. Whilst it may be possible that there is more to his visit than meets the eye it would nevertheless seem unlikely.

[jockspice]

I have just watched an interview with Ritter on BBC News 24 and it would seem that he is not quite able to back up what he has been saying, he contradicts his own information and thinks that being on "permanent transmit" in an interview will stop the interviewer asking difficult questions.
He made himself look a total puddock that wants his 15 minutes.

[solotk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38242000/rm/_38242321_iraq13_ritter_dtl_vi.ram

Friend or Foe?

Not a friend to Bush or Blair, that much seems certain. Friend to the Iraqi Government? Don't think so either

Loyal American ex?-serviceman, who'd rather see the war on terrorism return to being just that? Yes

If you must finger point Genghis, turn the spotlight on Richard Butler........

P3

[G.Khan]

Solotk - Definitely not finger pointing but there have some very conflicting views on what Ritter is up to, in the press and on TV, down here so I was asking those that might know what they thought.

Doesn't look, from the posts above, that too many agree with you though.

Butler has not been very visible down here of late but last time I saw him he was adamant that Iraq had WMD capability and the West would ignore it at its peril. What is your point of view then?

[Flash2001]

From watching both Ritter and Butler (And the National Security Adviser) on CNN, I gather that Ritter has more technical expertise. In contrast to Ms Rice, he observes correctly that alumin(i)um tubing isn't all that much use in a uranium enrichment plant.

I have too many times heard Richard Butler talk about making a radiological weapon with bomb grade uranium to believe that he has any technical knowledge.

[solotk]

Genghis,

Sorry for the delay in coming back on this.

As you're probably aware, a lot of the American public, have pigeon-holed Ritter in the "Benedict Arnold" camp.

The more vociferous, are comparing him directly to Hanoi Jane.

Scott has the most experience on the ground, of any weapons inspector. Furthermore, he is known, perhaps because of his outstanding personal, and family military backgrounds, as never taking the party line.

The Iraqi's disliked him intensley, for his dedication to turning over their weapons dumps, and never taking no for an answer. In a perverse way, they respected him for that.

Richard Butler on the other hand, had little or no respect for the sensitivities of the Iraqis, as well as coming across, as a rascist, being accused as much by the iraqi government.

Let's be honest,Scott has a new book, and film to promote, so what better than flying straight to Baghdad? Enormous PR.

However, the message he delivered to the Iraqi parliament, was not one of concilliation or supporting their cause. it was very much one of "Stop lying or start dying"

I don't believe Bush or Blair, or to cut to the heart of the matter, Con. Rice or the rest of the coterie of self-interest, have paused to consider Arab pride.

And that is the heart of the matter....

I think Saddam and Co. will place their official offer through Ritter, which is after all, what he wants (see self-promotion) and is probably pushing for, he wants to leave Baghdad, as the "Saviour" of the free world.

Saddam and Co get what they want..... one in the eye for Bush and Blair, the UN get what they want, and ironically, so do B+B.
It enables them to say, "Well really, we had to use all avenues, and the threat of force worked"...

I think you'll find, that Ritter is going for his "Glory moment"...

IMHO

P3

[Scud-U-Like]

solotk

The word 'parliament' normally implies some degree of representation, which the Iraqi Assembly certainly doesn't have. I doubt many ordinary Iraqis got to hear Ritter's criticism of Saddam, but you can be sure his anti-American comments were given plenty of air time.

[Bubbette]

He's the Hanoi Jane of Iraq.

[G.Khan]

Thanks Solotk, I have a bigger picture now.:)

[Toddington Ted]

I heard him being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme as I drove to work (well, hobby really!) and he didn't interview particularly well. He accused the interviewer of playing games, called him "buddy" the English still don't understand that word (at least not on Radio 4) and appeared to lose his cool somewhat. Not difficult when under pressure of course, but a golden rule is never to take it personally and argue with the interviewer. I'm sure Jacko would substantiate this. Ritter did, and he went down in my estimation immediately as a result.:(

[West Coast]

Appearances often mean more than the message being conveyed. Taking partisan money to make his movie, hooping up his book there along with broad accusations of others. His credability is on the wane.

[EJ Thribb]

There was a very interesting article in todays Guardian (no really) by Scott Ritter. Please see link below;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html

If that doesn't work go to www.newsunlimited.co.uk and then click on the G2 icon.

Hope it works and I didn't fuq it up.

[tropicopter]

Thanks EJ Thribb, that article was certainly interesting and it seems that a lot of what Scott Ritter says is pretty much borne out by Rolf Ekeus, now chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and former Swedish ambassador to the United States, who served as executive chairman of UNSCOM from 1991 to 1997, in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times - Washington Post. It would be interesting to know if he has expressed any opinion on the views of Scott Ritter. Anybody out there know?