Thursday, October 27, 2005


PF: Ritter blows whistle on Iraq invasion

From Philosophe Forum:

Scott Ritter - Time Magazine photoScott Ritter, left, a former Marine, was a top United Nations (UN) weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. He lead more an a dozen missions often facing top Iraqi military and security personnel. He has maintained the argument that Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and has never threatened U.S. security. It is nothing more than domestic politics.

During an interview with the former UN weapons inspector, he talked about looking for weapons of mass distruction (WMDs) in Iraq. He also explains how much of the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq was discredited by work he and fellow inspectors conducted in the 1990s. He new book
Iraq Confidential : The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein (Nation Books) is now available.

Scott's position as a weapons inspector was quite specific. As a Marine intelligence officer with 12 years experience gathering information, he had all the qualifications for it. He also had some knowledge of the Russian language. After former President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the Marines assigned him to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic in a missal production facility learning how to be a weapons inspector. He was a ballistic missle advisor to General Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf War. He has specialized in this field ever since.

Scott has been very professional in his approach to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. His attitude is neither pacifist or sympathetic. It is factual. When a country agrees to submit their data and does not, members of the intelligence community know that it is time to pay a visit, ask questions, gather information, assess the findings, and develop conclusions.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- in 1991. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained the illusion that a legitimate reason to invade the Mideast country existed. George H. W. Bush began a policy of regime change for Iraq. He used the inspectors as a Trojan horse to report on the security Saddam Hussein and deliberately mislead Congress and the American people. Bill Clinton inherited the policy against his better judgement. The current President George W. Bush has followed through with his predecessors' legacy. By 1997, 90 to 95 percent of those weapons were disarmed. By 2003, the country did not pose a threat to America's security. With the most intrusive procedures possible, the inspectors proved that the country's weapons of mass destruction no longer existed.

The the current Bush Administration uses its ideology to permeate a sense of fear throughout the country -- without justification. Scott uses Iraq Confidential to outline all the factual non-classified intelligence information. He had 100 percent access to the primary UN points of contact. His sources are legitimate. The contents of his book are grounded in reality.

There are no security forces in Iraq that people can be loyal to. No one has truly defined the problem. Without defining the problem, there can be no solution. Why has the U. S. invaded Iraq? Why does the U. S. continue to occupy Iraq?

The U. S. has a Rule of Law yet the legislators deliberately allowed the country to enter into into a war based on a lie. The neo-cons then created their own politically correct reality of 12 to 20 missles, used CIA policy to undermine and infiltrate the UN inspection teams during the 1990s, and then to undermine their efforts again before the 2003 invasion. They thought they could gain access to the planet's second largest oil resources in Iraq with a quick and easy invasion. Once they acquired access, they planned to leverage the U. S. political and economic control with global control.

The plan backfired, and getting the U. S. out of the lie is long overdue. The
exit strategy that Rep. Ike Skelton (MO-04) proposes is unrealistic since it has no basis for reality. Here is the reality:

  • The US occupation forces created Iraq's civil war in the first place.
  • The country's insurgencies are anti-occupation in nature.
  • The US goal has never been to build a Mideast democracy.
  • Iran is now in charge of Iraq.

Scott offers his own viable exit strategy that is not a capitulation. It is a multi-lateral process with the U. S. leading it.

  1. Remove the occupation troops. They need to come back home to the U. S. The Shiites, Khurds, and Sunnis will learn to live with it.
  2. Reinfranchise the Sunnis with political and economic forces to remove the radical Islamic factions.
  3. Encourage the Khurds to stop talking about independence. The Turks will never allow it. They cannot allow it because they want to be part of the European Union.

There are no other suggestions for a viable exit strategy based on reality and the Rule of Law. If it compromises anything, it is the U. S. government's political lies about Iraq.

Source:  Philosophe Forum.

Submitted by Dave Haigler, Abilene, Texas
lawfirm webpage: www.haigler.info
political blog: http://demlog.blogspot.com

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Donate to DemLog, a project of Marcus Comton (click on box below to go to PayPal and donate). Thank you very much: