Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-U.N. inspector visits Iraq to "prevent a war" (Ritter)
Reuters | 9/08/02

Posted on 09/08/2002 2:38:49 AM PDT by kattracks

BAGHDAD, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector who rejects U.S. charges that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, has arrived in Baghdad declaring that his mission is to try to stop any U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Ritter, who arrived in Baghdad late on Saturday, was expected to address the Iraqi parliament on Sunday. He was also due to meet senior Iraqi government officials.

Ritter said the trip was at his own initiative "...as an American citizen concerned about the direction that my country is taking, I think that's the reason why I'm here."

"I'm here to help set in motion a sequence of events that hopefully could prevent a war that doesn't need to be fought," he told CNN.

His trip to Baghdad came amid heightened speculation U.S. President George W. Bush might order a military strike against Iraq to topple the government of President Saddam Hussein, whom Washington accuses of developing such weapons as nuclear, biological or chemical arms.

Ritter, a former U.S. Marine who resigned his U.N. post in 1998 and later accused Washington of using the inspections teams to spy on Iraq, said last month that Baghdad had been fundamentally disarmed after the 1991 Gulf war that drove Iraqi invasion troops out of Kuwait.

On leaving his U.N. job, Ritter at the time accused the United Nations and the United States of not being tough enough on Iraq when it violated Security Council resolutions, but he subsequently became a vocal critic of U.S. policy on Iraq.

"Their (Iraqi) weapons programmes have been eliminated," he told a gathering in Washington last month of opponents to any U.S. strike on Iraq.

"Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbours. It does not threaten its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not threaten the world."

He has said Washington and the United Nations should reassess their positions and not insist on 100 percent disarmament.

Arms experts left Iraq on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing campaign in December, 1998. They have not been allowed in since.

Iraq says it has no more weapons of mass destruction and that the United Nations should lift sanctions imposed on Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait.

((Hassan Hafidh, Baghdad Newsroom))

© Reuters Limited.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; ritter; unscom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: kattracks
Makes you wonder what happened to make Ritter do a 180.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

41 posted on 09/08/2002 6:24:14 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead; kattracks
shades of Hanoi Jane

Eerie that you should take the words from my mouth.

Wonder if he worked with a lot of cheese-eating-surrender monkey socialist-slut-staters during his time with the un.

[And to think I thought the hair-job bank-robber "senator" from Delaware got it wrong when he told him he was talking out of his pay scale!]
42 posted on 09/08/2002 6:28:27 AM PDT by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I wonder if Ritter has any off-shore or overseas bank accounts?.....just wondering!
43 posted on 09/08/2002 6:32:09 AM PDT by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
When the President outlines all the evidence before we level Bagdad, I'd like to see the Bush-Hating, "Hanoi Jane" Ritter arrested for treason.

I don't even think Hanoi Ritter has been bought and paid for or is being black-mailed. I just think he is a Bush-Hating, New-World-Order, U.N.-Loving ego-maniac that became addicted to the camera and is using his celebrity to promote his self-interest propaganda!

44 posted on 09/08/2002 6:34:22 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
"You are making a case for Iraq being involved in the development of a nuke but most people do not understand why this is bad.",

Geezzzz!! ...and obviously you are one of these "most people'?

The rest of your "most people" are over at DU!!

...maybe you can catch a plane flight and join your brother Hanoi Jane Ritter in kissing Saddam's ugly ass!!

45 posted on 09/08/2002 6:42:17 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LenS
I agree. Given that when he had access to information he believed we were not tough enough, and that he has accepted employment from Iraq, he is simply not to be believed. Indeed, he seems to be adhering to an enemy of the United States, giving aid and comfort to such enemy at least, and doing so for money. If here were sincere, but misguided, as, for example former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, it could be tolerated as a monument to free speech. However, since the man is manifestly not sincere or honest, he should be investigated for treason once war actually breaks out.
46 posted on 09/08/2002 6:48:32 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Thanks for the backgroung info on Ritter. The bombing on Baghdad (Mecca or Medina) should begin on 9/11. Give them their own day to remember. Let's play terrorism.
47 posted on 09/08/2002 6:52:43 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Did you read what I wrote. I am down with kicking the shyatt out of the enemies of the USA. The case hasn't been properly communicated to the public. I don't want it to backfire and cause a divide in the USA. When Bush starts talking about the threat of blackmail he needs to spell it out in D-E-T-A-I-L so the avg dumbass will get it. He can't just come off the plane and sound bite a comment about it and expect the avg dumbass to get it. OK?
48 posted on 09/08/2002 6:55:35 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Going to visit his secret paymaster?
49 posted on 09/08/2002 7:05:50 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ritter said the trip was at his own initiative "...as an American citizen concerned about the direction that my country is taking, I think that's the reason why I'm here."

. Who paid for the trip and is anybody looking into Ritter's finances?

50 posted on 09/08/2002 7:16:34 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
Could it be that he's telling the truth?

If he were telling the truth there wouldn't be any reason for Saddam to keep inspectors out of Iraq.

Saddam and Rittter are trying to make inspection the issue when in fact it isn't an issue on the table anymore in the Bush Administration. Saddam is going, inspections or no inspections, and sooner than he thinks. Ritter would be smart to get on board his Iraqi paid for return flight before it is to late.

51 posted on 09/08/2002 7:27:56 AM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mhking
The Logan Act of the 1790s forbids a private citizen from attempting to make foreign policy over the heads of the nation's leaders. However, this has become an inoperable law in the wake of actions by popular liberals like Jane Fonda Turner and the Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson, Sr. Isn't Ritter regarded as something of a "conservative"? He did speak out against AR Bill in the late 1990s at great risk to himself. I would not yet write off Ritter as a "traitor." We will have to wait and see what he can or cannot accomplish.
52 posted on 09/08/2002 7:29:06 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Iraq being involved in the development of a nuke but most people do not understand why this is bad. Really. A lot of countries have nukes (too many for sure) but they aren't using them except as a deterrent.

But the distinction between Saddam and the members of the nuclear club can be made easily. From this thread yesterday:

Saddam is a brutal military dictator (his first job was as an assassin); he has taken over weaker neighbors in search of power prestige, and resources; he has rattled his sabre towards America repeatedly; he pays $25,000 to the families of terrorists to reward them for killing innocent civilians; he has used WOMD against Iran and against his own people; he believes in the superiority of his brethren over the rest of the world; he is trying to develop nuclear and chemical weapons in violation of the resolutions that ended the Gulf War; he refuses to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq unless he has had a chance to hide them...

in short, he's an evil tyrant who needs to be removed from power before millions are decimated trying to remove him in a global war. Saddam (and Iraq, and the soon-to-be-destabilized Middle East) can avoid war by his ouster, replacing him with a popular-election Republic that will not allow terrorists to stand unmolested in their land. The free flow of oil at market prices will be necessary, as Iraq will need an economic recovery from this shake-up (Marshall Plan, anyone?).

And from the US Department of State's webpage:

Saddam Hussein's Anfal Campaign in the 1980s against the predominantly Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq was characterized by gross violations of human rights. It included the worst ever chemical weapons attack against a civilian population, mass summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary jailing and warehousing, forced displacement, and destruction of some 2,000 villages (4,000 destroyed since 1975), including schools, mosques, farms, and power stations. The campaign resulted in the death of at least 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, according to Human Rights Watch reports. During the 1991 Iraqi repression of the post-Gulf war Kurdish insurrection, thousands of Iraqi Kurds died, 500,000 became refugees along northern Iraq's "no-fly zone" bordering Turkey, and 1.2 to 1.4 million other refugees fled to Iran.

Saddam Hussein launched about 40 gas attacks against Iraqi Kurdish villages and targets in 1987-88 with thousands killed, including the largest attack in March 1988 on Halabjah, a Kurdish town of 45,000 in northern Iraq, causing 3,500 to 5,000 deaths, according to Human Rights Watch. Chemical agents used were a "cocktail" of Mustard gas (which affects skin, eyes, and the membranes of the nose, throat, and lungs), and the nerve gases Sarin, Tabun, and VX.

An excerpt of a quarterly report (shown below) indicates Iraqi aircraft bombed the headquarters of the "sabotage bands" (Iraqi code word for Kurdish resistance) in Iraq's Kurdish villages of Sayw Sanan (Saywan) and Balakajar in a chemical strike on 22 March 1988, killing 50 and wounding 20 others. This Iraqi state document contains the first official direct reference to a chemical attack carried out by Iraqi forces.

The idea that Saddam could be trusted with nuclear weapons (or any WOMD) is easily refuted.

53 posted on 09/08/2002 7:34:51 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JonH
"Nothing else makes sense"

It's my estimation that he was always on the side of Iraq and actually sabatoged the inspection mission by giving them the itinary of the inspection teams in advance so they would find nothing.

All his retoric and testimony is pure BS!

If he ever returns to the US he should be tried as a traitor.

With any luck he will join the British idiots and try for his 72 virgins along with them.
54 posted on 09/08/2002 7:35:55 AM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I have more respect for Fonda than Ritter. Fonda is basically stupid and didn't go to Hanoi for money. Ritter is not stupid and if he hasn't accepted a big (one million plus dollars) bribe from Iraq then I'm a monkey's uncle.
55 posted on 09/08/2002 7:38:13 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Link failed to provide needed information.
56 posted on 09/08/2002 7:50:51 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If Joe Biden was correct, I think we can truly believe Ritter today. He's likely making much more money now than he was when he testified before Biden's committee. It was Biden himself that said credibility in such matters is entirely dependent on how much money you make. That should tell us all we need to know.

What I am curious about though, is I once heard that Ritter was a Marine (now ex-Marine). I just wonder what happened. Is he an example of what the Marine Corps produces? Time was I had a good deal of confidence in our military. Ritter really undermines that. I s'pose it's a logical error to assign to the group the characteristics of the one.

Do other Marines and ex-Marines still claim him as one of their own?

57 posted on 09/08/2002 8:08:10 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LenS
Unless he's able to show that he found proof of Iraq's innocence in the PI studio or in a cornfield in Iowa, I'd say this is an open and shut case of selling out for cash.

Or receiving death threats to himself or his family?

58 posted on 09/08/2002 8:08:22 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Some Arab or whatever, sympathizer in the US financed the trip. I had the name but forgot. Will get back with it in a few minutes.
59 posted on 09/08/2002 8:32:31 AM PDT by Jaidyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stevem
I'm just seeing if others think this explains part of the 180 done by Ritter.

Ritter watched Butler be booked on innumerable Cable Talk Shows and then watched as Ritter himself was booked on the same shows. Not only did neither of them make any money doing this (even with their books that they tried to hawk on the shows) but after a while, everyone stopped calling.

What can one do when one's only expertise is no longer in demand? Switch sides and negotiate a good deal?

Is that why these "quasi-journalists / political-hacks" switch sides (even back and forth like David Brock) as in Blinded By the Right.

60 posted on 09/08/2002 9:21:48 AM PDT by OReilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson