Posted on 01/28/2005 7:04:31 AM PST by dead
The invasion of Iraq was a monstrous crime for which everyone shares the blame, writes Scott Ritter.
The White House's acknowledgement last month that the US has formally ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq brought to a close the most calamitous international deception of modern times.
This decision was taken a month after a contentious presidential election in which the issue of those weapons and the war in Iraq played a central role. George Bush was unwavering in his conviction that Iraq had such weapons.
When one looks at the situation in Iraq today, the only way it would be possible to justify the current state of affairs - a once secular society now the centre of a global anti-American Muslim jihad, tens of thousands of civilians killed, an unending war that costs almost $US6 billion ($7.67 billion) a month, and the basic principles of democracy mocked - is if the invasion of Iraq was for a cause worthy of the price. With no weapons of mass destruction there is no justification for the war. And yet there are no repercussions.
The culpability for the war can be traced to Senate hearings in 2002, when the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell said: "We can have debates about the size of the stockpile ... but no one can doubt two things. One, they [Iraq] are in violation of these resolutions ... And second, they have not lost the intent to develop these weapons of mass destruction."
Politicians, the mainstream media and the public alike accepted this line of argument, without debate, thus setting the stage for an illegal war.
UN weapons inspections were never given a chance. Ever since the Clinton administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998, the US has denigrated the efficacy of the inspection process. This was a policy perfected by Bush. In October 2002, a month after Saddam Hussein agreed to the unfettered return of weapons inspectors, the US postulated the existence of secret production facilities, protected by a "concealment mechanism" designed to defeat inspectors. Thus, even if they returned, a finding of no weapons of mass destruction was meaningless.
Inspectors did return, and they found nothing. Iraq submitted a complete declaration of its weapons holdings, which was dismissed as lies by the Bush Administration. Everyone seemed to accept this rejection of fact. "Intelligence information" was assumed to be infallible. And yet it was all just hype.
There was never any serious effort undertaken by the Bush Administration to find Iraqi weapons. Before the invasion, the US military re-designated an artillery brigade as an "exploitation task force" designed to search for weapons of mass destruction as the coalition advanced into Iraq. It did little more than serve as a vehicle for its embedded media representative.
A new organisation, the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay, spun data for the political benefit of the White House. Kay hinted at dramatic findings, only to suddenly reverse course once Saddam Hussein was captured. Kay told us that everyone had got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction, that it was no one's fault. He was replaced by Charles Duelfer, whom
I witnessed manipulate reports to the Security Council, rejecting all that didn't sustain his (and the US Government's) foregone conclusion that Iraq had such weapons.
Politicians, the mainstream media and the public at large failed to let facts get in the way of assertions. The survey group had accomplished its mission - to establish an alibi. Its job done, it slipped quietly away.
Through the invasion of Iraq, a crime of gigantic proportions has been perpetrated. If history has taught us anything, it is that it will condemn both the individuals and respective societies who not only perpetrated the crime, but also remained blind and mute while it was being committed.
Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998.
But there are. And they'll be found. Iraq, Syria...wherever. They will be found.
Listen do you smell something?
Traitor lover, or do like twelve year old girls as well?
The only thing you'd know about stockpiles is the BS your spouting.
Helloooo? Captain?
Seriously, does anyone still give a rat's behind about what this moron says????
The WMDs were dispersed throughout arms depots, mixed among common ordinace to disguise their presence. Many WMD rocket and artillery rounds have been found since the invasion and several have been used in IEDs. The MSM couldn't accept this and moved the bar from WMD to "stockpiles" of WMDs.
Furthermore, much of Saddam's WMDs were likely moved to Syria or destroyed following the invasion, just as much of his nuclear weapons equipment went to Libya. Khaddaffi has turned over Saddam's WMD equipment, Syria hasn't. Saddam and his supporters bribed politicians, governments and the media while he was in power. Who's to say this isn't still occuring? The behaviour of the MSM and certain government indicates it is.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.
The sarin and mustard gas shells found in Fallujah, Baghdad and on route Tampa last spring and summer (all reported in the media) prove 1) Saddam had WMDs and 2) he lied about their existence and preservation and 3) he, the media and liberals have concealed or dismissed their existence and use.
I feel bad about helping CG dog you about the mole, so when I found these in a French army surplus store, I picked 'em up for you, if you want them.
Good for when you need to kick some butt in a ladylike way.
Just Ritter, his 15 minutes gone by, vainly scrabbling for the limelight...yawn.
There was more than one case, you know.
Ritter has high moral standards. When he's been bought, he stays bought.
What about the interval from '91 to '98?
Ever since the Clinton administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998,
I thought it was the Hussein administration that ordered them out.
|
captainnickerson
Unprepared Since Jan 27, 2005
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||
The trouble with having "sexual proclivities" is that you tend to become blackmailable/controllable. Ask Bill and Hillary.
What credibility??? Oh, he is writing articles for al Jazeera is that what you mean?
ping
Except now it's not a naked mole rat, is it?Maybe not Saddams. How about Kofi's son?
Looks like a tiny beret for a French Teacup Walrus.
So is the invasion of a pre-teen's pants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.