(Moderators, this is my hand-typed transcript. -r.)
Dennis Miller v. Scott Ritter
This is from February 2004:
Miller was stupid enough to have Ritter as a 'guest' via video-screen for an "interview" in February, for his "show".
Miller is beneath contempt. I have more respect for crack whores.
----------------------------------
Miller: ...but first for 7 years my guest tonight hunted Saddam Hussein's weapons in Iraq as the cheap weapo-- CHIEF. Did I say 'cheap'? No, Blix was the cheap one, the Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission, uh- welcome Scott Ritter. Scotty, how are ya?
Ritter: I'm doin' good, yourself?
Miller: Alright. I'm alright I want you to take it easy tonight, you're always so pensive, I watch you on TV and I think, 'I wonder if Scott ever has a light day?' So take it easy tonight, alright?
Ritter: OK.
Miller: Alright, be at ease. Now listen... as it turns out, I can't figure out if you were Nostradamus, about these weapons, or if you just touched so many bases back then that inevitably you were gonna hit the correct one. Trace the timeline for me on when you went from thinking that Saddam Hussein was not being suitably disarmed to when you think we made a mistake for going in. Can you trace that for me?
Ritter: Sure... from 1998 to 2003, I didn't believe that Saddam Hussein had been found to be in compliance with his obligations to disarm, and I was supportive of returning weapons inspectors to Iraq to complete the mission that we were tasked with accomplishing in 1991. So at no time, did I say... Saddam had been confirmed as having NO weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 I was responding to the Clinton administration which was telling Congress on the one hand that they were fully supportive of weapon inspectors, but on the other hand pulling the plug on the inspections, interfering with our work, corrupting the integrity of our operation, and so I resigned saying I can't do my job. Let me into Iraq, let me do my job, if Iraq won't cooperate, then hold Iraq accountable, but don't corrupt our integrity by using us for things we're not intended to be... like we're not there to spy on Saddam so you can... remove his regime, we're there to disarm him. Unfortunately, in December 1998 the Clinton* administration bombed Iraq using intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam, after ordering the inspectors out, (Saddam didn't kick 'em out), and that corrupted the integrity of the operation. No longer could inspectors be seen as fair & objective implementers of the Security Council mandate. From that point on I said, look, it's not just Iraq that's causin' the problems, it's American policy, we need to get the inspectors in, but America needs to decide whether or not it's going to go along with the rest of the world, and support disarmament, or if it's gonna to go after it's own unilateral policy of regime change. I always said, get the inspectors in, if Iraq fumbles the ball, then you got an excuse to take 'em out. But until you allow the inspectors to do their job in good faith, and stop manipulating the inspections, it's not wise to speak of war, because you'll be going to war unilaterally, in violation of international law, with really no chance of acheiving a victory.
Miller: Scotty lemme ask ya this-- You're a Marine, for life, right? You're in there and you feel they're compromising the integrity of the search, that having been said, Saddam Hussein's a monster, if you saw something-- forget spying, if you saw something that was completely out of bounds, of course you would've ratted him wouldn't you? I mean you hadn't gone that far off the reservation, had ya?
Ritter: Look, I'm an American citizen, I'm an American patriot,... you know, I'm a former Marine, I would never do anything that would be detrimental to my country's National Security. If I saw something in Iraq that was bad for the United States, if I saw something that was against human rights; I reported it, I have a long record of reporting things to the CIA, to the FBI, to the State Department about what I saw in Iraq but there's a difference between-- reporting, and doing something that corrupts the integrity of the operation- we were there to disarm Iraq, we were not there to remove Saddam Hussein from power. And unless the United States was willing to say, look, we don't believe disarming anymore, we're into regime change, that's it... other than that... it's underhanded techniques... It- didn't help us in the United Nations, we ended up goin' in alone... we're now stuck in a trap, a quagmire, nobody trusts us 'cause we hyped up a threat that didn't exist, to go after- a madman- look, I believe in the death penalty. But I don't believe in summary execution. There's a thing called due process, and we didn't acheive due process in going after Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Miller: So you really believe it's unilateral, right? None of the other 32 nations mean anything to you be- because they're not the Big Ticket items France and Germany, you still think of this as just us, right?
Ritter: Well, I think us, together with Great Britain, the United Kingdom, we're the two big players. The other nations no, look, look at NATO. Examine the military alliance that we have in NATO and what it took to put together this comprehensive, effective, military alliance, years of training, coordination, commonality of equipment. The 32 nations that we have in Iraq are more of a detriment than they are of a gain. Polish, Bulgarian troops, who's protecting them? Italians, under what chain of command? Uh no, this 32 nations is a show, it's a sham, it's not real. That 'Southern Division' is not effective, especially, if as I fear, Iraq explodes into civil war. The Shi'a blow up against the United States and the coalition this summer, you're gonna see those 32 nations headin' for the hills, and we're gonna be stuck, all by ourselves, maybe with the British there to help us.
Miller: I don't know if the- listen; I think, Poland has done yeoman's service I th- I think ya do 'em disservice sayin' that's it's a bit of a joke. Look I've got around 5 Teamsters here with an s-k-i on the end of their name, who are ready to debate that with ya. Any, ya know, uh(unintelligible), listen Scott lemme ask you this--
Ritter: Now, I'm not denigrating the Poles' courage--
Miller: Well, I misinterpreted the 'Polish being a joke' thing.
Ritter: (--------------uncomfortabe silence----------------) No, I said the 32 nations that are there are a joke in terms of- effective coordinated military alliance. There are troops there that can't protect themselves. We're the ones that're gonna be stuck protectin' them. It'd be more effective to send them home, and make it an all-American uh, show, with British, that's an effective, unified command. To bring in 32 nations, you have logistics issues, you have command and control issues, security issues, and uh, it takes- more effort to supply them, to feed them, to epuip them to protect them, than it is to have them do anything beneficial on the ground.
Miller: Alright Scotty, but ya gotta remember, you send the Poles home, we got nobody screwin' in the light bulbs. We'll be right back to talk more with Scott Ritter right after this.
(insert Viagra commercial here)
Miller: Alright we're back with former Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, now Scott, I was reading something in your uh, your uh notes and it said that at one point you visited a children's prison in Iraq. Issat the case?
Ritter: Look, in uh, January 1998 I led an inspection into what's called the General Intelligence Service, the Gestapo of Saddam Hussein's regime. The political police. And in there, there was a prison, for children. Apparently the only crime they commited was being the children of people who dissented from Saddam Hussein they were kept in in horrible conditions--
Miller: Scott, lemme ask ya this, real quick, cuz I've got a short second segment- at that point, aren't all bets off as far as integrity, the mission and all that, isn't that the point, when you see a prison, for kids, don't we just Buford Pusser this animal just to get it out of our system? Isn't he a bad guy? Doesn't he deserve to be snuffed?
Ritter: Well, he's a VERY bad man and I reported the presence of this prison to the authorites but again, look, as a 12 year veteran of the Marine Corps my heart went out to those kids, but I put on the uniform to die for my country, to die for my fellow citizens, to defend the Constitution, uh, I'm not the world's policeman, there's a lot of bad things that happen in this world, you can go to the Sudan and see horrific things, that doesn't mean you want American boys and girls dying in the Sudan. I can go to Chechnya and watch Russian crimes against the Chechens, I don't think we should be goin' into Chechnya, killing Russians because they're committing genocide against the Chechens. We uh, you know, we're not the world's policeman. If the United Nations, of which we're a part of, determines that Saddam Hussein, because he has children's prisons and other prisons, represents a threat to international peace and security, so be it. Let's go in and take him out. But it's not America's unilateral role to make that decision.
Miller: You know somethin' Scott, that might be your take on it but I'll betcha there's a buncha kids over there, in that 150,000 that are still there, if they found a children's prison, they'd KNOW they were fightin' the right thing, they wouldn't think about the Constitution, there's a bit of a bing-bang here, when you see a prison, for kids, where an animal like that is snuffin' kids just because they were born to the wrong parents, there's a lotta kids over there that are there for that EXACT reason. Don't you SEE that?
Ritter: Oh, I see it, look, you know the world is full of bad things and you want to go out and do the right thing, but you know there's a lot of kids who are dyin' and the fact is no Americans died last month rescuing children from a prison. They died on roadside explosions, gettin their helicopters shot down, why are we dyin' in Iraq? Why have 530 Americans died? It's no solace to the parents and the loved ones of those who have lost their lives that they're over there in Iraq to do what? What are they accomplishing? They're in a nation illegitemately, they're occupiers, not liberators, the period of liberation is long gone. Uh, in all fairness to the men and women serving over there, I think we need to ensure that before we ask them to give their lives for their country, it's in a cause worthy of that and right now, occupying Iraq simply is NOT one, and that's my opinion.
Miller: Yeah, well, in fairness Scott, I'd have to say that when you use words like illegitemate and that, uh, the f- th- the parents of those 530-odd boys and girls who have been killed over there I- I think that you treat them uh, shabbily there. Many of them do feel that uh, their son and daughter were called to a higher calling, and they gave their life, the ultimate thing, and I think you should watch your language there. Uh, yeah, it's fine for you to figure it out this way, but when you use terms like illegitimate I think you hurt them and hurt the memory of their lost children. And I wanna ask you-
Ritter: Oh no I honor, I honor the memory of their lost children-
Miller: Well then honor it, honor it-- Honor it with some softer language, my friend when you remember them.
Ritter: I'm trying to bring their sons and daughters home alive not in body bags not dismembered, not wounded. Again, I've BEEN there, Dennis. I've served in the military I've gone to war for my country, so I know, what it is I'm talkin' about.
Miller: I honor that service Scott I'm askin' you to be a little tactful.
Ritter: No, not when people are dying, there's no time for tact. It's time for direct action, and that is to say, Mr President, get the boys and girls home now. They shouldn't be there, they're there illegitmately, look, what is the basis in law for us being in Iraq? There's no Security Council resolution authorizing it, it's a violation of international law, the President hyped up a threat, that didn- that didn't exist, he said we're goin' there to disarm Iraq, not to liberate Iraq, not to free the Iraqi people. There are no weapons, so now people are conveniently coming back and revising history saying, no, it's all about liberating Iraq, and freeing the Iraqi people. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense said himself that the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam are not worth the life of a single American soldier, in Vanity Fair, he gave it in an interview. So now, the ONLY reason that we're in Iraq, cause there's no Weapons of Mass Destruction, there's no link with Al Qaeda, is what? To free the Iraqi people from the crimes of Saddam? The Bush administration themselves said that's not worth the lives of Americans, yet, that's ALL people can now say to justify this sacrifice made by these Americans. Get them home. That's how we honor them. Don't make them die, in a fruitless, futile cause.
Miller: And Scotty I would say sometimes you honor them by not letting legalese, semantics and alacrity with the facts get in between what's right, and what's wrong. Thank you very much for coming on.
Ritter: Thank you.
* (Since this "interview" Ritter has provided details about how the CIA f*cked him and UNSCOM over,
Iraq Confidential. And according to Ritter, the foreign policy decision to remove Saddam dates back to Bush I, Clinton was just "along for the ride".)
-----------------
Ritter's book is best summed up by Ritter in these 4 paragraphs from the Epilogue;
The notion of the war in Iraq resulting from an intelligence failure is very convenient for all parties involved. The intelligence community can simply say that intelligence is a tricky business, and sometimes you get it wrong. This, of course, provides a convenient excuse for the politicians, and compliant media, to contend that they were simply acting in the public interest based upon the information they were given...
...In the end, to accept the concept of Iraq as an intelligence failure, one must first accept the premise that the USA was implementing, as its primary objective for Iraq, the Security Council's resolutions on disarmament. This argument is simpy not sustainable. The behavior of the United States government and its intelligence agencies during my time as an inspector was not that of a government that was serious about disarmament. Support for UNSCOM's mission was, at best, tailored to the political imperatives at any given time. There was a total willingness to compromise the integrity of UNSCOM (and with it the whole notion of multilateral disarmament) for short-term tactical advantages in the battle between the US and Iraqi regimes. Towards the end of the inspections era, elements of the US government actively sought to make UNSCOM's job more difficult by cutting it off from intelligence sources. Disarmament was simply not the USA's principal policy objective in Iraq after 1991. Regime change was.
The CIA was designated as the principal implementer of this policy. Therefore, when one looks at the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent removal of power of the government of Saddam Hussein, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the CIA accomplished its mission. Iraq was, in fact, a great intelligence victory, insofar as the CIA, through its manipulation of the work of the UN weapons inspectors and the distortion of fact about Iraq's WMD programs, maintained the public perception of an armed and defiant Iraq in the face of plausible and plentiful evidence to the contrary. We now know that both the US and UK intelligence services had, by July 2002, agreed to 'fix the intelligence around policy'. But the fact remains that, at least as far as the CIA is concerned, the issue of 'fixing intelligence around policy' predates July 2002, reaching as far back as 1992 when the decision was made to doctor the intelligence about Iraqi SCUD missile accounting, asserting the existence of missiles in the face of UNSCOM inspection results which demonstrated that there were none.
As an American, I find it very disturbing that the intelligence services of my country would resort to lies and deceit when addressing an issue of such fundamental importance to the security of the USA. Intelligence, to me, has always been about the facts. When intelligence is skewed to fit policy, then the entire system of trust that is fundamental in a free and democratic society is put at risk. Iraq, and the role of the CIA in selling the war with Iraq, is a manifestation of such a breach of trust.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
