Former inspector speaks out
Cbass
02-08-2003, 05:03 PM
By Andrew Marshall
ABU DHABI, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Evidence presented by the United States to show Iraq is concealing banned weapons is flawed and proves nothing, a former United Nations weapons inspector turned anti-war activist said on Saturday.
Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and senior weapons inspector in Iraq who has become a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, said a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations this week lacked any real evidence.
"It is smoke and mirrors. It has nothing to do with reality. It was plain wrong," Ritter said in a speech to ministers, diplomats and journalists in the United Arab Emirates.
Powell used audiotapes of intercepted Iraqi conversations and satellite photos to argue Iraq concealed arms by bulldozing chemical weapons sites, hiding rocket launchers under palm trees and moving mobile biological weapons labs on trucks.
But Ritter said he knew from his experience as a weapons inspector that none of the evidence stood up to scrutiny.
He said satellite images were of limited use without further investigation, as suspicious images often turned out to have innocuous explanations, and radio intercepts were worthless unless the context of the conversation was known.
The testimony of defectors was also of limited use, Ritter said, especially as they gave conflicting evidence on whether Iraq had retained weapons of mass destruction.
Ritter resigned as a U.N. weapons inspector in 1998, saying inspectors had insufficient backing to do their jobs. At the time he said Iraq had not disarmed and still posed a threat.
His critics say his switch to the view that Iraq has no banned weapons lacks credibility, and question his motives. But Ritter says his arguments are based on hard evidence.
MOBILE BIOWEAPONS LABS
Ritter said there was no evidence to support Powell's assertion that Iraq has at least 18 mobile bioweapons labs.
The possibility that Iraq had such mobile laboratories had been raised by inspectors in the 1990s purely as a hypothetical way in which Iraq could be concealing weapons, Ritter said.
"These labs exist purely in the minds of inspectors," he said. "We hypothesised their existence. There is no information to say they ever existed. We made them up. But they have taken on a life of their own."
Ritter said it was true Iraq had not accounted for some ingredients used in the production of anthrax, but the last known batch of liquid bulk anthrax had been produced in 1991, at a factory destroyed in 1996.
Even under ideal storage conditions, he said, within three years liquid bulk anthrax becomes "useless sludge".
Ritter said recent Iraqi concessions, including allowing some scientists to be interviewed without minders present, meant a credible inspections process could get under way in Iraq.
But he added that Washington's main aim was to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Iraqi disarmament, so the United States would block attempts to set up long-term inspections.
"Let there be no doubt that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction," he said. "But Iraq no longer possesses a meaningful capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08351098
This is a good unbiased news source.
ABU DHABI, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Evidence presented by the United States to show Iraq is concealing banned weapons is flawed and proves nothing, a former United Nations weapons inspector turned anti-war activist said on Saturday.
Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and senior weapons inspector in Iraq who has become a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, said a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations this week lacked any real evidence.
"It is smoke and mirrors. It has nothing to do with reality. It was plain wrong," Ritter said in a speech to ministers, diplomats and journalists in the United Arab Emirates.
Powell used audiotapes of intercepted Iraqi conversations and satellite photos to argue Iraq concealed arms by bulldozing chemical weapons sites, hiding rocket launchers under palm trees and moving mobile biological weapons labs on trucks.
But Ritter said he knew from his experience as a weapons inspector that none of the evidence stood up to scrutiny.
He said satellite images were of limited use without further investigation, as suspicious images often turned out to have innocuous explanations, and radio intercepts were worthless unless the context of the conversation was known.
The testimony of defectors was also of limited use, Ritter said, especially as they gave conflicting evidence on whether Iraq had retained weapons of mass destruction.
Ritter resigned as a U.N. weapons inspector in 1998, saying inspectors had insufficient backing to do their jobs. At the time he said Iraq had not disarmed and still posed a threat.
His critics say his switch to the view that Iraq has no banned weapons lacks credibility, and question his motives. But Ritter says his arguments are based on hard evidence.
MOBILE BIOWEAPONS LABS
Ritter said there was no evidence to support Powell's assertion that Iraq has at least 18 mobile bioweapons labs.
The possibility that Iraq had such mobile laboratories had been raised by inspectors in the 1990s purely as a hypothetical way in which Iraq could be concealing weapons, Ritter said.
"These labs exist purely in the minds of inspectors," he said. "We hypothesised their existence. There is no information to say they ever existed. We made them up. But they have taken on a life of their own."
Ritter said it was true Iraq had not accounted for some ingredients used in the production of anthrax, but the last known batch of liquid bulk anthrax had been produced in 1991, at a factory destroyed in 1996.
Even under ideal storage conditions, he said, within three years liquid bulk anthrax becomes "useless sludge".
Ritter said recent Iraqi concessions, including allowing some scientists to be interviewed without minders present, meant a credible inspections process could get under way in Iraq.
But he added that Washington's main aim was to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Iraqi disarmament, so the United States would block attempts to set up long-term inspections.
"Let there be no doubt that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction," he said. "But Iraq no longer possesses a meaningful capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08351098
This is a good unbiased news source.
Luetic
02-10-2003, 04:53 PM
This is the same Scott Ritter arrested for child molestation.
Cbass
02-10-2003, 05:28 PM
No, it's not. That is Stefan Ritter, but nice try :rolleyes:
Luetic
02-11-2003, 07:28 AM
no, its the same one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html
ALBANY, N.Y. — A former U.N. weapons inspector was arrested in 2001 during an Internet sex sting operation and was under investigation for a similar incident months before his arrest, according to published reports.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html
ALBANY, N.Y. — A former U.N. weapons inspector was arrested in 2001 during an Internet sex sting operation and was under investigation for a similar incident months before his arrest, according to published reports.
Cbass
02-11-2003, 02:07 PM
Upon reading that, he never molested anyone, and was never convicted.
Regardless, his personal life does not matter, what does matter is the information and opinions he has as a former UN weapons inspector, and former US intelligence officer. He has spoken out also about collecting intelligence info for the CIA on his weapons inspections mission.
The US statements that Iraq is not complying with the inspectors is a misrepresentation of the facts, the last weapons inspection team was proven to be a fact finding tour for the CIA.
Also, Saddam Hussein has given the inspectors freedom to travel anywhere in Iraq, even his homes.
What "not complying" means in the US sense is not telling inspectors where alleged weapons are. If there are no weapons, does that still mean he's not complying?
Regardless, his personal life does not matter, what does matter is the information and opinions he has as a former UN weapons inspector, and former US intelligence officer. He has spoken out also about collecting intelligence info for the CIA on his weapons inspections mission.
The US statements that Iraq is not complying with the inspectors is a misrepresentation of the facts, the last weapons inspection team was proven to be a fact finding tour for the CIA.
Also, Saddam Hussein has given the inspectors freedom to travel anywhere in Iraq, even his homes.
What "not complying" means in the US sense is not telling inspectors where alleged weapons are. If there are no weapons, does that still mean he's not complying?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025