[thechat] Scott Ritter on Iraq

[Hugh Blair]

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Judah McAuley
>
> It's trivially true that he has an opinion and his opinion is, of
> course, not automatically correct.

Even he has differing opinions. From the article sited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4504072,00.html

<quote>
Just after his resignation he said: "I think the danger right now is
that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring,
Iraq can, in a very short period of time, reconstitute chemical
biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these
weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponisation
programme." Only 100% disarmament would do, he insisted.

A year later, however, he was saying: "As of December 1998 we had
accounted for 90 to 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
capability. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of
production. We couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but
chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons
have a shelf-life of three. To have weapons today, they would have
had to rebuild the factories and start producing these weapons since
December 1998." </quote>

> I will redily accept the fact that other people may disagree with him,
> however it is unconcionable that his expert analysis is not being
> brought into the debate in much of the media.  It's sad that there is
> very little debate going on in much of the media.

I see/hear a lot of attention to this issue in the media. NBC's Today
show had an interview of Scott and other UN inspectors just recently.

Some media attention...
NBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/809036.asp
Slate:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/813379.asp
PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
Truthout:
http://truthout.com/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm
Written by Scott - in the Boston Globe:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

> My country appears to be wandering blindly into a war with
> little or no debate.  That scares me.

I hear/see/read a *lot* of debate. There's a lot of debate on this
issue. Even here among web geeks. A good thing.

Hugh