Friday, October 21st, 2005
Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy
to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258
We speak with Scott Ritter, the chief United Nations weapons
inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 about his new book:
"Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence
Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." It
details how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN
departments to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United
States in the Middle East. [includes partial transcript] In a
major article in The New York Times this weekend, reporter
Judith Miller admitted she was wrong when she wrote several of
the key articles that claimed Iraq had an extensive weapons of
mass destruction program ahead of the 2003 invasion. Miller
wrote, "W.M.D. -- I got it totally wrong. The analysts, the
experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all
wrong." Today we are joined by someone who was not wrong about
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - Scott Ritter. He was the
United Nations" top weapons inspector in Iraq at UNSCOM between
1991 and 1998. Before working at the UN he served as an officer
in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General
Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war.
Scott Ritter has just published a new book titled "Iraq
Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to
Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein." The book details
how the CIA manipulated and sabotaged the work of UN departments
to achieve the foreign policy agenda of the United States in the
Middle East.
* Scott Ritter, was the United Nations' top weapons inspector in
Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before working for the UN he served
as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile
adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war. He is
author of a new book, just out, titled "Iraq Confidential: The
Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN
and Overthrow Saddam Hussein."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!.
SCOTT RITTER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, what do you
think is the greatest misunderstanding of the American people
right now about what has happened in Iraq?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, first of all, the reason that we're there.
They think that this was an accident, that this was a noble
cause, that people like the president, like Bill Clinton before
him, like their respective administrations, journalists like
Judith Miller just honestly got it wrong. And I don't think –
you know, here we are today in Iraq and it's a disaster. I don't
think anybody's going to debate that statement. Some people say
though, ‘We're working towards a continuation of this noble
objective. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's a good thing.
And now we're going to try to build on that good.’ I'm not going
to debate whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good
thing or not. But, you know, if you embrace the notion that the
ends justify the means, that's about as un-American a notion as
you can possibly get into. We're talking about solving a
problem. We have yet to define the problem. The problem isn't
just what's happening in Iraq but it's the whole process that
took place in the United States leading up to the war, this
dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public.
And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton
administration, that administration said the same things. The
C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi
weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was
never about disarmament
AMY GOODMAN: How did they know this?
SCOTT RITTER: They knew it, (a) because of their own access to
intelligence information and (b) because of the work of the
weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted
the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of
Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an
Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi
biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the
weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. But, see, the
policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change.
Disarmament was only useful in so far as it facilitated regime
change. That's what people need to understand, that this was not
about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace
and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a
domestic political embarrassment. That is the continued survival
of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true
friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a
dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of
Adolph Hitler.
JUAN GONZALES: You were involved for quite a long time with
UNSCOM. At what point did you, as you were working for the
United Nations, reach the conclusion that regime change really
was the intent of the program that – well, the United States
intent behind the program that you were involved with?
SCOTT RITTER: It wasn't a matter of reaching a conclusion. When
I joined in September of 1991, that was already the stated
policy of the United States government. I outlined this in the
book. The fact that in April, 1991, the United States helps
draft and then votes in favor of a Chapter 7 resolution 687 that
creates the weapons inspections, call upon Iraq to disarm and in
Paragraph 14 says if Iraq complies, economic sanctions will be
lifted. This is the law. A few months later, the president,
George Herbert Walker Bush and the Secretary of State say
economic sanctions will never be lifted against Iraq, even if
they comply with their obligation to disarm, until which time
Saddam Hussein is removed from power. It's the stated policy of
the United States government. What we weren't quite aware of is
just to what extreme they would go in undermining the
credibility and integrity of the United Nations inspection
process to achieve this objective.
AMY GOODMAN: Something that has been repeated over and over
again is that Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. weapons
inspectors. Can you tell us what happened?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, there are several periods of time, but the
most dramatic is the December 1998 period right before Bill
Clinton got on national TV, talked about the threat of W.M.D.
and said he is launching an air campaign, 72 hours of
bombardment called Operation Desert Fox. No, Saddam did not kick
the inspectors out. Actually, what was happening at that point
in time is that the Iraqi government was complying with every
single requirement set forth by the Security Counsel and the
inspectors. They were cooperating with the inspectors, giving
the inspectors access in accordance to something called the
‘modalities of sensitive site inspections.’
Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and
blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections,
the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with
disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity,
such as coming close to presidential security installations,
Iraqis raised a flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out
there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very
happy about giving you access to the most sensitive
installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So
we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a
site and the Iraqis called it ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four
people.
In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath
Party headquarters, like going to Republican Party headquarters
or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, “You can't
come in – you can come in. Come on in.” The inspectors said,
“The modalities no longer apply.” The Iraqis said, “If you don't
agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in,” and
the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place.
Bill Clinton said, “This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating,”
and he ordered the inspectors out. But you know the United
States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the
modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took
Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, “We're playing by the
rules, why aren’t you? If you're not going play by the rules,
then it’s a game that we don't want to participate in.” Bill
Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn't kick them out.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Your point that this kind of deception occurred
under both Democrats and Republicans would at least suggest that
what's happened in Iraq is not just a question of a bunch – of a
cabal of zealots in the White House right now that are
conducting this – that are hijacking policy but that there are
deeper interests involved in the United States and the kind of
policy that we've had in Iraq. You get into some of that in the
book. Could you talk about that a little bit?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I don't want to sound – I'm not somebody
who’s into conspiracy theories, and I'm not somebody who’s out
there saying this is about global oil. The tragedy of Iraq is
that it’s about domestic American politics. This is a president,
George Herbert Walker Bush, who in 1990, traps himself
rhetorically by linking Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Once
you do that, once you speak of a Nuremburg-like retribution, you
can't negotiate your way out of that problem. Now it's either
deliver Saddam Hussein's head on a platter or you failed. He
tried to during the Gulf War. I was part of a team that was
targeting Saddam. We didn't succeed.
Now the C.I.A. says, “Don't worry, Saddam will be gone in six
months. All you have to do is contain him, put these sanctions
in place and keep him bottled up and he'll collapse.” Six months
later Saddam Hussein is still there. His continued survival
became a political embarrassment that had to be dealt with.
This was inherited by Bill Clinton. The irony is that Bill
Clinton – and I'm very critical of Bill Clinton, but you know,
in the period between his election in 1992 and his being sworn
in, his administration reached out to the Iraqis in saying,
“Look, this is a ridiculous policy, let's figure out how we can
get sanctions lifted and get you back into the family of
nations.” But when politicians in Congress, both Democrat and
Republican, found out about this, they said, “You can't do this.
We have told our constituents this man is Hitler, and we can't
negotiate with the devil.”
We were trapped by this policy. And this cabal we speak of, the
neoconservatives, they may not have originated this policy but
they exploited eight years of Clinton administration's
ineffective policy of dealing with Saddam. Saddam's survival for
eight years empowered the neoconservatives to use regime change
as a rallying cry for the Republican Party. [break]
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click
here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
Amy Goodman's Speaking Events
10/22: Oakland, CA
10/27: New Paltz, NY
11/2: Cortland, NY
11/3: Stonybrook, NY
More...
Needed: Two Canon XL2 Video Cameras
Please click if you have one to donate or can contribute cash
toward purchase.
Cost $4,000 ea. with Lens and Accessories.
The Exception to the Rulers
SIGNED EDITIONS
Hardcover/Paperback
Lies of our Times: The NYTimes & Judith Miller
Read book excerpt on ”Hiroshima Cover-up“
Baltimore Sun: Hiroshima Cover-up
TODAY'S STORIES
Headlines for October 21, 2005
Los Titulares de Hoy: Democracy Now!'s daily news summary
translated into Spanish
Lawyer: Guantanamo Detainees on Hunger Strike Tortured and
Violently Force-Fed by Guards, Medical Staff
Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy
to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein
Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter on Iraq, WMDs and the Role of the
Clinton Administration in the 1990s
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations
help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of
hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous
contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
SOURCE:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258