'Instant' Book Decries U.S. on Iraq (Scott Ritter and William Pitt)

Associated Press Monday, September 16, 2002; 4:15 PM

NEW YORK –– Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter will be featured in an "instant" book that strongly opposes going to war against Iraq. Context Books will publish "War on Iraq" next week, with a first printing of 125,000. The book was written by William Rivers Pitt, a Boston-based author and political analyst. An interview with Ritter is included in the text. According to a statement released by Context, the book "debunks the key arguments for war," notably Iraq's alleged nuclear capabilities. Ritter, a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer, resigned from the U.N. inspection team in August 1998 after several years as a member. He left denouncing the Clinton administration for having withdrawn support for the U.N. agency and undermining weapons inspections. He has since become a leading critic of United States policy on Iraq. He has said that Washington used the inspectors to spy on Iraq – a longtime charge by Baghdad – and manipulated the United Nations to provoke a confrontation with Saddam Hussein as a pretext for U.S. airstrikes on Iraq. He also has said that Iraq is incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration has disputed Ritter's comments.

Scott Ritter's 180 on Iraq and WMD have been documented and remarked upon without a solid determination of the reason for the flip-flop. Ritter's so wacked-out that he denies any flip-flop.

It's been reported that Ritter received $400,000 from a Saddam-tied American-Iraqi businessman to produce a film about the Iraq situation. The Am-Iraqi knows Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Foreign Policy spokespuppet and with that contact was able to get Ritter in front of highly placed Iraqis for interviews. It's unknown whether the film has been shown anywhere.

The implication is that Ritter has been bought off. This explanation hasn't made sense to me for a couple of reasons. He had to have flipped before getting the dough and had to have been extremely persuasive, since Ritter was considered to be Saddam's enemy numero uno. $400,000 isn't a lot of money to be bought off for. Ritter could do a lot better. I just don't see him doing what he's doing for money.

I was skimming through "Betrayal" by Bill Gertz and I think I have found a part of the explanation for Ritter's flip. He was betrayed by the US Government. During his stint as an UN Arms Inspector in Iraq, Ritter knew they were being played for fools by Saddam. Israeli Intelligence provided him with the info that Saddam has set up special directorates to organize and run the subversion of the arms inspection. So, Ritter came up with a plan to prove the subversion and to follow where the stuff would be taken.

To do this he planned Operation "Shake the Tree". Ritter had the cooperation of the Israelis and he had US Intelligence cooperation. The plan used a combination of U-2 spy planes, special electronic intelligence equipment and secret intelligence gathering techniques. Clinton stabbed him in the back. Clinton withdrew the U-2's and electronic equipment.

Ritter was lied to by the US Intelligence and betrayed by Bill Clinton going back to '95. Here's what Ritter said back in '97: "An inspection is a very choreographed thing....The Americans never met the timeline with the U-2s." "They didn't fly the sensors we wanted them to fly, and therefore the ground and air components were never in sequence." "In the end it was a big political black eye. We did our job."

Ritter got screwed by Clinton for who knows what reasons. Ritter leaves in '98, testifies before the House and Senate and then is cut loose, abandoned by the US Government. Notice how he says "The Americans", he doesn't say "we" or the "government". He didn't count himself among "the Americans" back then in my opinion.

Today, Ritter sees a chance to get back at a US Government operation and he's going to try to screw that up, like they screwed over his operation.

I am more inclined to suspect Clinton threats or blackmail, a known Clinton MO. After all, he and Hillary are not through with their quest for world power, her as U.S. President and him as U.N. Sec. Gen.

I just finished The Cell, almost a companion piece for Gertz's book, and Clinton's quest for a legacy, especially after impeachment, in the form of a ME peace agreement seemed to make him go soft on the terrorists, at least at certain critical times. He wanted a Nobel Peace Prize and that would have been his loegacy. He didn't want to do anything to piss Arafat in the hopes that Arafat would make and sign an agreement. Therefore, he went soft on Saddam to placate all Arabs. That would ensure their vote for him as Secretary General. He had already bought the Communist a thousand ways, especially China and Cuba.

As far as Ritter, Clinton never could tolerate critics.

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.