The problem I see is: Scott Ritter.
His reliability as a source is very questionable since his story is changing and is full of logical holes.
Seemingly $400,000, given by an Iraqi businessman, with established ties to Saddam, has greatly enhanced Mr. Ritter's views as well. And yet, Mr.
Ritter claims he is in debt because of the film/documentery....some $50,000? Riigghhtt.
The man speaks with "forked-tongue" and his credibility as a 'source' is better left unsaid, especially in respect to using Mr. Ritter's
utterances in the above article Shotek.
Here's some information on that:
"Saddam Hussein's American Apologist"
"Ex-UN Inspector Ritter to Tour Iraq, Make Documentary"
"SLUG: 2-278385 Iraq Sanctions / Movie (L only)"
"Ritter's documentary premieres at UN"
Mr. Ritter speaks "double-talk". Think not? Here's what Mr. Scott Ritter said in an interview in 1998
his 'retirement' or
withdrawal from UNSCOM:
"ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Could you describe the most recent investigation that you wanted to undertake. Give us a little detail about it and what
happened to derail it.
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, basically, the investigations that I was tasked with carrying out by the executive chairman involved looking at
exposing the means by which Iraq hides their prohibited weapons and weapons capabilities from the special commission. We needed to expose this
methodology so that they used so we could get at the weapons, themselves. And the investigation has been going on for several years now, and this
summer we were in the process of resuming these inspections, you know, in accordance with the agreement reached by Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein in
accordance with the Security Council resolutions that said Iraq had to comply or face severe consequences, so we're trying to get back on task. We
had some very specific information, which led us to believe we could go to locations where we would find aspects of this hidden weaponry, of these
hidden components, and also uncover how Iraq actually went about hiding these weapons from the commission. We had very specific information, and we
believe that if we'd been allowed to accomplish this inspection, we could have achieved meaningful disarmament results."
"ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the
special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I
believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that
without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical
biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the
investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that
you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to
enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement."
This interview was done just after Ritter resigned as lead weapons inspector from UNSCOM. Mr. Ritter believed Saddam/Iraq were effectively hiding
weapons, and that they still possessed the means to produce WMD's. Somehow today, incredulously and 'mysteriously', Mr. Ritter is singing a
different tune. But at the time that Mr. Ritter was most informed
, his opinion was that Iraq had the capability of producing the weapons and
that without the threat of military force, it would continue to defy the UN and the US.
Strange how things have changed, eh? Now, after years of
not seeing any 'real' up-to-date information, Mr. Ritter is now recanting or changing his views?!
Here's the source for the above quotes and information:
"SCOTT RITTER; August 31, 1998
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript"
Also...in September, which he later says again in December, of that same year (1998), Mr. Scott Ritter states or indicates to the Nuclear Control
Institute (NCI) that Iraq/Saddam still had the means to make a nuclear weapon and that all that was missing was fissionable (fissile) material?
"RITTER TESTIMONY CONFIRMS NCI'S WARNINGS
THAT IRAQ HAS ACTIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM"
Mr. Scott Ritter lacks any 'source' credibility or credibility at all, especially after this:
From the May 5, 2003 issue: And the journalists and politicians he bought with it.
"....Al-Khafaji first came to public notice after revelations that he gave former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to produce a film
that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process. Al-Khafaji, who is listed as a "senior executive producer" of the film,
arranged meetings for Ritter with high-level officials in Saddam's government, a feat New York Times magazine writer Barry Bearak found
"impressive." Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's
weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for
soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the nature of his relationship with al-Khafaji."
You raved about my 'source issues'....?
Scott Ritter is defintely a "source issue"!
[Edited on 1-1-2004 by Seekerof]