I was listening to the radio as I drove from DC down to Charlottesville (where I am right now, having enjoyed a great evening with former blogger and frequent commenter Rob Lyman who is another in the string of smart fascinating people I've met through blogging), and Scott Ritter was on, pointing out that of all the analysts, his take on Iraqi WMD was the closest to what we've found.
He gets some points for that, in my view.
But...
He was asked what the accusation that he'd been "bought by the Iraqis" was based on, and he explained that it was baseless, because an Iraqi-American had used his own money to finance Ritter's $400,000 documentary "On Shifting Sands". I remember wondering as I drove "Hmmm. Wonder where the Iraqi guy got his money."
Today I got my answer.
ABC news published a list of the people who got money from Saddam's Bribes for Oil program, and among them...
"Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million barrels of oil, sold at below-market prices". That would be the same guy who financed Ritter's movie. So now I'm left with a second question; how did the budget for the film break out? What did Ritter get as a producer's fee? And, if he was bought and paid for, even indirectly, how does that effect my views on what he said?
Ritter was right on the WMDs, but I don't trust the pervert anyways.
Ritter has not been proved wrong on the WMDs. Distinction.
Bottom line: he had a major change of position on the basis of no apparent evidence, and became - there's no nice way of putting this - an apologist for Saddam's regime (he knew about, and refused to publicize, the childrens' jails for instance). All financed by a man with close ties to Saddam.
Who showed no signs of cooperating fully with inspections, which is odd behaviour for a man with no WMDs.
The best we can say here is that Ritter may have been an agent of influence for a tyrant who was himself mistaken on this point, and that when directed to lie he therefore ended up telling the truth by accident.
[he] became - there's no nice way of putting this - an apologist for Saddam's regime (he knew about, and refused to publicize, the childrens' jails for instance).
"Time: You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?
"Ritter: The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." (Time, 2002-09-14)
Who showed no signs of cooperating fully with inspections, which is odd behaviour for a man with no WMDs
Not odd behaviour for a man on notice that disarmament is not enough:
"We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful." (Madeleine Albright, 1997-03-26)
"What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he lasts." (Bill Clinton, 1997-11-14)
"Q.: Is it [the President's] opinion that the sanctions will not be lifted ever as long as Saddam is in power, whatever he does, even if he were to comply?
MR. BERGER: Let Saddam Hussein come into compliance, and then we can discuss whether there are any circumstances." (press briefing, 1997-11-14)
"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change . . ." (Colin Powell, Financial Times, 2002-02-12)
a tyrant who was himself mistaken on this point
There's good evidence that the tyrant was mistaken on the point before 1991 (e.g., CNEWS, 2003-11-30; for the later period, there are fantasies by hawks in denial.
when directed to lie he therefore ended up telling the truth by accident
Ritter's change of position took place before any known contact with al Khafaji; if anything, it seems to have been Operation Desert Fox that radicalised him.
"Nothing was gained from these strikes, and much was lost, to include Unscom itself." (interview, BBC, 1998-12-22)
"Ritter's conversion apparently began before he ever met al-Khafaji. In 1999 he published Endgame, a book that . . . labeled the sanctions against Iraq "evil," and suggested that the international community could do business with Saddam. It was only after Endgame was published that Ritter says he was approached by al-Khafaji. It's possible that Ritter took money from al-Khafaji, or some other ally or agent of Saddam, before writing Endgame. But there's no evidence of that." (Michael Crowley, Slate, 2002-09-25)
Even after changing his position, he did not give Iraq a clean bill of health, e.g.:
"There is no doubt that they're hiding stuff from the weapons inspectors. What they're hiding are drawings, blueprints, some components, some material." (interview, FOR, 1999-04-22)
". . . when I make an assessment about Iraq's disarmament level, it has nothing to do with what Iraq has declared. I do not trust them, I take nothing they say at face value, it is based upon on the hard work of weapons inspectors" (interview, CNN, 2002-07-17)
As for telling the truth by accident, not only did he accidentally reach the right conclusion, but he accidentally reached it for the right reasons too: effectiveness of the UN inspections, degradation of chemical weapons stocks over time, etc.
. . . now I'm left with a second question; how did the budget for the film break out? What did Ritter get as a producer's fee?
"Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation). . . Of the $400,000, he claims that only $42,000 went into his own pocket . . ." (Slate, 2002-09-25)