Posted on 01/29/2003 8:10:03 PM PST by HAL9000
Key facts 'omitted by Blix'
LISBON:
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter yesterday accused Hans Blix, the chief of the UN weapons inspection teams in Iraq, of leaving out key facts in his briefing to the UN Security Council in order to bolster the case for a war with Baghdad.
"The report was probably the best favour he could have done to the Bush administration in order to facilitate a military strike against Iraq," he said in an interview with private radio TSF.
In a strongly worded status report submitted to the Security Council on Monday, Blix said his arms experts had found no banned weapons since they began work last November, but he also listed unanswered questions on Iraq's arms programmes from anthrax to VX nerve agents and missiles.
But Ritter said the report was "harsh and misleading" as it did not provide all of the information which Blix had at his disposal regarding these weapons.
"Regarding the anthrax, why didn't he (Blix) explain that it, especially liquid anthrax, becomes useless three years after manufacture? "It is the same with the talk of chemical weapons. Hans Blix should have taken into account that any chemical weapon that was produced between 1993 and 1998 was of such bad quality that today it would not be viable," he added. Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the UN of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.
By Leon Barkho Associated Press Writer Thursday, Aug. 3, 2000; 7:51 p.m. EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000803/aponline195140_000.htm
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors, a former U.N. arms inspector said Thursday at the end of a six-day tour in which he did not visit suspected Iraqi weapons sites.
Scott Ritter said he had not asked to see such sites for the documentary film he is making on Iraq because he feared that Baghdad and Washington would use the visits for propaganda.
Ritter said the United States' policy toward Iraq is troubling. On the one hand, he said, Washington insists that Iraq abide by U.N. resolutions that require its disarmament, while on the other hand it links the lifting of U.N. sanctions to the removal of President Saddam Hussein.
Ritter resigned as a U.N. inspector two years ago, saying the United States was not aggressive enough in compelling Iraq to disarm.
But he said at a news conference Thursday that he quit because he felt the United States was manipulating the U.N. inspection agency for political ends.
The United States and Britain have been the strongest proponents of Iraqi disarmament, arguing that sanctions cannot be lifted until Baghdad proves it has eliminated long-range missiles and biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Ritter said Richard Butler, former chief of the disbanded U.N. inspection agency, UNSCOM, and United States and Britain had been spreading "inaccurate information, irresponsible speculation" to picture Iraq as a threat.
Ritter said his documentary will say that Iraq has "qualitatively" met U.N. demands and that sanctions should be lifted.
He interviewed senior Iraqi officials, but said he did not go to suspected arms sites because if he had found nothing Iraq would have said that proves compliance. The United States would have said Iraq emptied the sites ahead of time, he said.
Ritter said he borrowed money from an Iraqi-American to make the documentary, but was not sure whether anybody would buy it.
I suggest that Ritter take a long soak in such liquid, and then, a month or so later, come tell us about it.
Ummmm Chris ya think it's possible Saddam could have made a new batch???
"You are RADIOACTIVE!" (meaning your comments are worthless now, you PERVVVVVVVVVVVVVV!)
Hmmm, nah, he's a reformed character, dontcha know? Just like Scottie. Hasn't touched an under-age girl since, well, since the last time he was caught red-handed.
OK, Scott......let's talk about anthrax and chemical weapons, shall we?
You're clearly suggesting that all of their anthrax and chemical weapons are, in effect, useless as weapons. If that's the case and if what you say is true, then why the hell aren't the Iraqis saying so and showing this outdated, useless stuff to the inspectors? Why whould they hide something when you say they have nothing to hide?
If you are trying to disarm me and I open the revolver up to show you that there are no bullets inside, you're probably going to relax a bit. If I know that you'll shoot me unless I disarm and I know I have no bullets, wouldn't it behoove me to show you that I have no bullets with which to hurt you?
Ritter..........you're an idiot. Worse yet, you think the rest of us are, as well.
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.