Question about Ritter

[Dover]

I just saw this posted on another web site forum and am curious if these discrepancies have been addressed by Ritter. Anyone know?
________


What Ritter said in his article the other day:

In this I was not alone. Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspec tors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was ‘‘fundamentally disarmed’’ as early as 1996.

What Ritter said in testimony before the US Senate in September 1998 on the issue of Iraq's disarmament:

Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership. I'm here today to provide you with specific details about the scope and nature of interference by this administration in UNSCOM, the debilitating effect that such interference has on the ability of UNSCOM to carry out its disarmament mission in Iraq and to appeal to the administration and to the Senate to work together to change America's Iraq policy back to what has been stated in the past: full compliance with the provisions of Security Council resolutions, to include enabling UNSCOM to carry out its mission of disarmament in an unrestricted, unhindered fashion. Only through the reestablishment of such a policy, clearly stated and resolutely acted upon, does the United States have a chance of resuming its leadership role in overseeing the effective and verifiable disarmament of Iraq so that neither we nor Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East will be threatened by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons.....

....I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs....

....Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months....

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is the problem here. All decisions pertaining to his retention of weapons of mass destruction in direct disobedience of international law, are made by him and him alone. And he is the only one who can make the decision to comply with Security Council resolution. So I would agree with you that Saddam Hussein is the problem. How you resolve the problem of Saddam Hussein is an issue that's better left to people whose responsibility that is...

And in August 1998 from Ritter's UNSCOM resignation letter:

The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions. As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today.

[no one in particular]

1. Ritter doesn't matter.

Ritter is a poor spokesman for our cause and I've never used him as a source for anything.

The Neos just want to kill the message by killing the messenger. Most likely Scott was either paid off before or is now, and we do our side a disservice by associating with him.

Still, considering the worst he said, it in no way justifies the war. It was a UN matter and should have been resolved through the UN.

[procopia]

2. He explains in this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0731-09.htm