Bush Avoids Accountability in Iraq-WMD Blame Game

Interview with Scott Ritter, former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, conducted by Scott Harris

After grudgingly accepting the evidence that no weapons of mass destruction will likely ever be found in Iraq, the White House has been engaged in damage control, countering critics - including presidential candidates vying for the Democratic party nomination - who are pounding President Bush on his "credibility gap."

Although David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq declared that Saddam Hussein's government probably had no WMDs at the time of the U.S. invasion, he blamed a failure of intelligence, rather than the White House. But soon after, CIA Director George Tenet stated publicly that his agency never told President Bush that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Another key player in the pre-war drama, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq Hans Blix, has also pointed fingers. He recently compared president Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to insincere salesmen exaggerating the importance of the evidence of WMD they used to promote their attack on Iraq.

One of the few officials with a working knowledge of Iraq's weapons systems to publicly oppose the Bush administration's march to war was Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer who served as a chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 through 1998. In the years before the war, Ritter challenged the president's assertion that Baghdad's weapons systems posed a grave risk to the U.S and necessitated a war. Between the Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Scott Ritter about the Capital Hill blame game and his view of the commission appointed by Bush to investigate U.S. intelligence failures.

Scott Ritter's book, "Frontier Justice, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," is published by Context Books.

For more information on the campaign to oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, contact United for Peace and Justice at www.unitedforpeace.org

Related links

"Distorting the Intelligence,"The New York Times | Editorial, " Feb. 17, 2004

"Intelligence Panel's Finances Will Stay Private," The New York Times, Feb. 15, 2004

"Bush's Iraq Commission Won't Be Investigating The Key WMD Issue," By John Dean, FindLaw, Feb. 13, 2004

"President Stumbles in Reacting to the Public Unraveling of White House Justification for Iraq War," Between The Lines interview with Bill Hartung, conducted by Scott Harris, week ending Feb. 20, 2004

"The Iraq War & The Bush Administration's Pursuit of Global Domination," Counterpoint interview with Scott Ritter, conducted by Scott Harris, Sept. 15, 2003

LISTEN to this week's half-hour program of Between The Lines by clicking on one of the links below:

http://www.btlonline.org

*

"Between The Lines" is a half-hour syndicated radio news magazine that each week features a summary of under-reported news stories and interviews with activists and journalists who offer progressive perspectives on international, national and regional political, economic and social issues. Because "Between The Lines" is independent of all publications, media networks or political parties, we are able to bring a diversity of voices to the airwaves generally ignored or marginalized by the major media. For more information on this week's topics and to check out our text archive listing topics and guests presented in previous programs visit: http://www.btlonline.org

*

"Between the Lines," WPKN 89.5 FM's weekly radio news magazine can be heard Tuesdays at 5:30 p.m. ET; Wednesdays at 8 a.m. ET and Saturdays at 2 p.m. ET (Wednesday's show airs at 7:30 a.m. ET during fundraising months of April and October).

*

For an email subscription of "Between The Lines Weekly Summary" which features a RealAudio link to the week's program for Between The Lines, send an email to btlsummary-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

*

For an email subscription of "Between The Lines Q&A" which features a RealAudio link and weekly transcript to one of the interviews featured on Between The Lines, send an email to btlqa-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

*

betweenthelines@snet.net

*

Distributed by Squeaky Wheel Productions

http://www.squeakywheel.net/

*

©2004 Between The Lines. All Rights Reserved.

**

"Secret Pentagon Unit Churned Out Dubious 'Intelligence' Used to Justify Iraq War," Between The Lines interview with journalist Robert Dreyfuss, conducted by Scott Harris, week ending Jan. 23, 2004

The same Scott Ritter who received 400 grand from Shaker Al-Khaffaji (who got vouchers for 7 million barrels of oil from Saddam) to make a documentary about how the weapons inspections were corrupted by the US? http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16404#_edn47

That Scott Ritter?

The Scott Ritter who said Iraq is "not nearly disarmed," he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his "entire nuclear weapons infrastructure." Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs "within a period of six months," he told a Senate committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he "remains an ugly threat to his neighbors and to world peace."

Today Ritter sings a suspiciously different tune. He now contends that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" in the 1990s. It turns out that when U.N. inspections ended in 1998, Saddam "did not have the capability to reconstitute" his death machine. Ritter now assures us that "Iraq is a threat to no one." Earlier this month, he took the extraordinary step of visiting Baghdad to address the Iraqi assembly, where he said that "in regards to the current situation between the United States and Iraq, the truth is on the side of Iraq." http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502

You mean that guy? The one with no credibility, and who was bought and paid for by Iraqi money?

Just checking.

If Ritter was wrong about Iraq being fundamentally disarmed, then where are those WMDs?

Your leader lied to you, and got fellow service members killed. And yet you still keep towing his line.

You should be ashamed.

"If they haven't been found, they don't exist."

Is that the what passes for logic you're using?

Iraq's a big place. Lots of hidey holes in the desert.

But I think they're in Syria.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

"Report: Syria hiding Iraqi WMD

Sources say relative of President Assad smuggled arms to 3 places

Posted: January 6, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad is hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in three locations in Syria, according to intelligence sources cited by an exiled opposition party.

The weapons were smuggled in large wooden crates and barrels by Zu Alhema al-Shaleesh, known for moving arms into Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions and for sending recruits to fight coalition forces, said the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria."

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm

1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn?t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.

2) Colin Powell?s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?

3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn?t in the past?

4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items?items that have an apparently ?civilian? use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?

5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?

6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven?t found WMD yet?

7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them ?unilaterally?? Why didn?t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?

8) There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn?t find any WMD?

9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?

10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein?s regime?

11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein?s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn?t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?

12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?

******************

Now, Ptolemy, perhaps you can answer those questions.

And this one as well: If Saddam had no WMD, why did he try so hard to make the world think he did?

nonanarchist

This WMD story will run and run.

The argument:

Not finding = Don't Exist

Is clearly wrong.

You stupid leftists' keep asking where the "WMD's are"

yet you have no idea what they are