> Editorial page > > RITTER OF ARABIA > 18 September 2002 > The Wall Street Journal > On the eve of the Gulf War, a young Marine named Scott Ritter wanted to > quit. But when President George H.W. Bush began dispatching troops to the > Persian Gulf, Mr. Ritter changed his mind. "I can't leave the Marine Corps > when my country's getting ready to go to war," he said later. "That's a > dishonorable thing to do." > Today, as a second President Bush prepares the country for war in the same > land, Scott Ritter is seemingly doing P.R. for Saddam Hussein, appearing > anywhere he can get an audience to dispute the contention that Saddam is a > threat to the world. Mr. Ritter shows up on National Public Radio, The > NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS, ABC, NBC and each of the all-news cable > networks. Prominent newspapers -- the Boston Globe, Newsday, the Baltimore > Sun, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times -- have published his > rants. He is quoted approvingly by members of Congress and world leaders. > Indeed, Scott Ritter has probably become the leading opponent of > intervention in Iraq. > But he wasn't always a dove. > Mr. Ritter worked in intelligence at Central Command during the Gulf War, > and shortly thereafter joined UNSCOM, the U.N. team assigned to rid Iraq > of its weapons of mass destruction. In his seven years in that role, Mr. > Ritter earned a reputation as a tough, some would say belligerent, > inspector. The Iraqis hated him, and complained each time UNSCOM sent the > American "cowboy" inspector. To the extent that U.N. inspectors were able > to partially disarm Saddam, Mr. Ritter deserves much of the credit. > But by 1998, Iraqi obstruction of inspectors reached absurd levels. Mr. > Ritter ripped the Clinton administration for its fear of confronting > Saddam, whom he described as a "real and meaningful threat." He resigned > his post in very public protest. > In congressional testimony that September, Mr. Ritter declared that Iraq > was "winning its bid to retain its prohibited weapons," and cautioned > about the future. "Once effective inspection regimes have been > terminated," he testified, "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." The inspections ended in > December. That month, Mr. Ritter amplified his earlier warnings in an > article in the New Republic: > "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed," he declared. "Based on highly > credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological > agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in > sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile > warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly > agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX > substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. These agents are > stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And > Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be > used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." > Then, at precisely the time Saddam was to have reconstituted his arsenal > according to Mr. Ritter's projection, the former inspector flipped. "Iraq > today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability," Mr. > Ritter declared. "Iraq represents a threat to no one." > What explains Scott Ritter's change of heart? Only he knows, of course. > But as his views have changed, he's taken money from a source who has led > many to question his objectivity. > Over the past two years, Mr. Ritter has taken $400,000 from Shakir > Al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam, to produce > a documentary called, "In Shifting Sands." Mr. Ritter concedes that Mr. > Al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." And that > may be an understatement. Mr. Al-Khafaji runs propaganda sessions for > Saddam. Euphemistically known as "expatriate conferences," the biannual > gatherings decry the "terrorism and genocide" the U.S. commits against the > Iraqi people through U.N. sanctions. > Mr. Ritter claims Mr. Al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film > project, a claim he undermines by openly admitting that his benefactor is > responsible for arranging Mr. Ritter's interviews with high-ranking Iraqi > government officials, including chief propagandist, Tariq Aziz. Even > before his project was completed, Mr. Ritter predicted at a press > conference that "the U.S. will definitely not like this film." These > contacts no doubt helped Mr. Ritter earlier this month, when he returned > to Baghdad and became the first American to speak before the Iraqi > National Assembly. > "There are those who wish Iraq harm regardless of the circumstances or > costs, and many of these currently reside in the government of the United > States," he told the Iraqis. "We must find a way to overcome the politics > of fear and those who practice it. The best way to do this is to embrace > the truth. In regards to the current situation between Iraq and the United > States, the truth is on the side of Iraq." > Mr. Ritter's arguments lately have deteriorated, from discrepant to > disturbing. On Dec. 7, in a speech delivered at the Center for Policy > Analysis on Palestine in Washington, Mr. Ritter suggested that Saddam > would be justified in working with al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. government > building. > Here is Mr. Ritter's take on the Prague meetings between an Iraqi spy and > Mohamed Atta, as transcribed by the Center: "What it appears transpired > was that the Iraqi intelligence officer spoke with Mohamed Atta at length > about an attack, but it was an attack on a radio transmission tower of > Radio Free Europe in Prague, Czechoslovakia. If you're the Iraqi > government and you're looking at the Iraqi National Congress (the > prominent opposition group), they are a legitimate enemy. Indeed, you > could make the case that the Radio Free Europe transmission tower, under > international law, is a legitimate target." > At times, Mr. Ritter seems confused about what, exactly, he should be > saying. In one sentence he'll declare Iraq "fundamentally disarmed," and > in the same interview argue that Saddam would be a fool to get rid of his > weapons of mass destruction because his neighbors won't get rid of theirs. > > Nothing will keep Mr. Ritter from sharing his views on the possibility of > Saddam's nuclear arsenal. In an interview from Baghdad, Mr. Ritter was > asked about a New York Times expose on the Iraqi government's procurement > of aluminum pipes. These pipes, say weapons experts, are precisely those > needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. No one, of course, other than Iraq > insiders can be sure that those pipes would be used for that purpose. > But Scott Ritter confidently says he knows that they will not. "Thousands > of aluminum pipes, and we're going to go to war over thousands of aluminum > pipes? This is patently ridiculous. These are aluminum pipes coming in for > civilian use. They are not being transferred to a covert nuclear > processing plant or any covert nuclear activity whatsoever." > With such assurances, who needs inspectors? > --- > By Stephen F. Hayes > Mr. Hayes is a writer for the Weekly Standard. >
