Remember UNSCOM? Here is analysis by Ritter pre-war.
Well, there's a large number of players involved here [in killing UNSCOM].
You have Iraq, which was not complying fully with Security Council resolutions.
What I mean by fully is they weren't letting UNSCOM complete that last few
percentage points to get us up to 100 percent.
So, Iraq is complicit. But
that'd been happening for eight years. UNSCOM was alive and well and breathing
for seven years. So, you can't say that Iraq killed UNSCOM because Iraq behaved
the same way throughout, and UNSCOM still existed.
The Security Council created UNSCOM under Chapter 7 of the United
Nations Charter, and that carries with it a promise to enforce its own law, and
the Security Council wasn't enforcing its law, and that helped to perpetuate
this cycle of cheat-and-retreat confrontation, and then, backing down.
You could say the Security Council killed UNSCOM, but again, that's a
process that's been taking place for years, and UNSCOM was still alive, well,
breathing, kicking, doing its job.
Now we come down to the final two
players. You have an executive chairman who, for whatever reasons, has become
enamored with the support of the United States. You have a United States
administration, the Clinton Administration, which, as we've seen with Madeleine
Albright's unfortunate statements of 1997, have decided to pervert international
law and say that it doesn't matter what Iraq does with disarmament, we're going
to keep economic sanctions in place.
Now, these sanctions are becoming harder and harder to defend, on two
fronts. One, what good are they doing? Are they having an impact on the target,
Saddam Hussein? The answer is no. Who suffers under sanctions? Innocent Iraqi
people. Thousands of children under the age of five die every month because of
these sanctions, and while the American public might be oblivious to this,
believe me, the rest of the world is not, and the longer we continue this
program of economic sanctions targeted against Iraq, the more isolated the
United States becomes.
But Richard Butler had come to a decision that we couldn't carry out
certain activities without the support of the United States. That the United
States was somehow our No. 1 backer in the Security Council, and he allowed the
United States to start calling the shots. An inspection a little too
confrontational, Richard? Why don't we pull the plug on it, buddy, and stop
it.
Now, Ritter hasn't questioned the $2 Billion that Saddam pocketed nor has he addressed how much that $2 Billion could have helped the "thousands of under the age of five" that he stated died each month because of the sanctions. Nor has Ritter discussed the UN's corruption.
Nor has Ritter discussed how wrong he was on this issue as well as all the other erroneous statements he made.
Many people have written about "The Person of the Year" and while I agree with many choices I also believe that Scott Ritter should be the "Person of the Year" for many years to come because his words bolstered the anti-American positions of Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, John Kerry (and his cousin Jack Iraq), Charles Schumer and so many other fools in this country and abroad. This cost, exacted by an ex-marine, has been paid by our soldiers and their families.
For his 15 minutes of fame, I place Scott Ritter ahead of Neville Chamberlain, but behind Benedict Arnold.
About right, Ritter should be rated between a fool and a traitor.
"Why don't we pull the plug on it, buddy, and stop it."
