February 07, 2004

SCOTT THE TRUSTWORTHY

Richard Glover in the Sydney Morning Herald:

For a long time, Scott Ritter, the UN's chief weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, was virtually alone in expressing doubts about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

And for a long time Ritter expressed exactly the opposite. Here, again, is an extract from his 1999 book, Endgame - Solving the Iraq Problem Once and For All:

I have grown convinced that there has been a total breakdown in the willingness of the international community to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is well on the road to getting his sanctions lifted and keeping his weapons in the bargain. A resurgent Iraq, reinvigorated economically and politically by standing up successfully to the United States and the United Nations, will be a very dangerous Iraq -- one that sooner or later will have to be confronted by American military might.

Glover, who usually doesn’t give free passes to bunko artists like Ritter, is presumably unaware of Ritter’s earlier hawkish attitude. So he lets him get away with crap like this:

In his role as a weapons inspector, he told me, he liaised with intelligence officials from Israel from 1994 to 1998. By the end of that period, Israel had reassessed the threat from Iraq, believing it had been fundamentally disarmed. In the same period, he says, the CIA came to the same conclusion. So, he asks, what happened to change that view, if not the arrival in the White House of George Bush.

That sounds like the reason Ritter changed his views. By the way, Glover also fails to mention Ritter's role as an underage girl inspector at the local Burger King.

Ritter still speaks the military language of patriotism and service, which he now uses to condemn both the leaders who demanded faulty intelligence, and the spineless agencies which went out to find it. "An intelligence officer's job," he said, "is never to tell the boss what they want to hear, but what the facts are."

Interesting. We’re still waiting for Ritter to tell us the facts about Iraq’s toddler gulag:

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Wage on, faker.

Posted by Tim Blair at February 7, 2004 12:41 AM
Comments

We need a word for the partisan sources who are so discredited that you discredit yourself by using them in your argument.

I mean a word besides "Noam Chomsky."

Posted by: Mike G at February 7, 2004 at 12:47 AM

Fuck Scott Ritter.

Posted by: Bill at February 7, 2004 at 12:57 AM

"Glover also fails to mention Ritter's role as an underage girl inspector at the local Burger King"

Nor does he mention $400,000 funding for a pro-Saddam documentary. It's amazing what cash can buy.

Posted by: Ken Summers at February 7, 2004 at 01:07 AM

For Bill: "Eww"

Posted by: Ken Summers at February 7, 2004 at 01:08 AM

Is "liaised" a real word? If it is it shouldn't be and it definitiely shouldn't be used by psychotic, child molesters who don't have the intelligence to lie successsfully about their private activities. Or by Scott Ritter, either.

Posted by: timks at February 7, 2004 at 04:42 AM

"Wage on, faker."

You spelled fucker wrong.

Posted by: Gary Utter at February 7, 2004 at 05:12 AM

Why is anyone still writing about this quisling?

Posted by: oldsalt at February 7, 2004 at 05:30 AM

Why is anyone still writing about this quisling?

I want him to set me up with a hot sixteen year old.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 7, 2004 at 08:23 AM

In other news, the UN yesterday passed a resolution promising a severe tongue-lashing if Saddam doesn't comply with inspections...

Posted by: Jerry at February 7, 2004 at 08:25 AM

Ken Summers is right. It's interesting to note that the man who provided that $400,000 for Ritter's little movie, , Shakir / Shaker Al Khafaji, was on the list of people allegedly paid off by Saddam in oil contracts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA16004

Posted by: alby at February 7, 2004 at 09:45 AM

So, he asks, what happened to change that view, if not the arrival in the White House of George Bush.

That sounds like the reason Ritter changed his views.

Except that Ritter said that he voted for Bush in 2000.

Posted by: Andjam at February 7, 2004 at 10:35 AM

Except that Ritter said that he voted for Bush in 2000.

Well, it's pretty well established that Ritter will say ANYTHING as long as he gets paid for it...

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at February 7, 2004 at 12:42 PM


You've got to be one seriously sick individual to try to have sex with teenage girls.

Normal, well-adjusted men dress their wives in Catholic schoolgirl outfits and _pretend_ it's a teenage girl they're banging.

Posted by: Dave S. at February 7, 2004 at 02:41 PM

I'm normal! I'm well-adjusted! Woo!

Posted by: Sortelli at February 7, 2004 at 03:39 PM

You've got to be one seriously sick individual to try to have sex with teenage girls.

Unless you're a teenager, of course.

Posted by: Quentin George at February 8, 2004 at 06:47 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Rolf Ekeus and then Richard Butler the Chief UN Weapons Inspectors? I got this from the UNSCOM site. Was Scott Ritter ever a chief weapons inspector, or is this lefty fiction?

Posted by: Tommy Shanks at February 8, 2004 at 07:27 AM

The UN passed a resolution stating that all the oppresive governments in the world should change are face a severe frowning in their general direction from Jacques Chirac. (Of course, a frown appears to be his only expression. Is this a John Kerry type botox experiment gone badly awry?)

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at February 8, 2004 at 09:47 AM