Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Scott Ritter, Former U.N. Weapons Inspector

Aired June 03, 2003 - 07:15   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, the different and difficult situation. A U.S. official tells CNN that the CIA will give Congress information that led the administration to believe that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction before the war. Critics have suggested the White House exaggerated the evidence to win public support of the war. Some members of Congress are calling for an investigation.
One man who said all along that the U.S. would find no smoking gun in Iraq is former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, and he is joining us from Albany, New York.

Scott, good morning. Good to have you with us.

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thanks a lot. Good morning.

KAGAN: There will be two Senate investigations. What do you think that they will find, and what kind of conclusions do you think that they will meet?

RITTER: Well, it's really up to the Senate. Remember, we're dealing with a body here that collectively endorsed the president's drive towards war. And I think the Senate, in order to be effective here, not only has to take a critical look at the White House and the Bush administration and how they manipulated information, but how the -- you know, what role the Senate played in this.

Joe Biden and Richard Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had hearings last summer, which, you know, had a predisposition about, you know, Iraq's culpability in terms of possessing weapons of mass destruction. No one took a hard, serious look at this. So, I think there's a lot of blame to go everywhere. And if the Senate is simply going to go through another sham hearing, this process will lead us nowhere. They're going to have to take critical look at the entire process...

(CROSSTALK)

KAGAN: Well, Scott, you used the word "manipulation," so I'm wondering if you're thinking that it's bad information or it's the interpretation of people not hearing what they wanted to hear.

RITTER: Well, it's both. I mean, when you start off by, you know, defining a problem as Saddam Hussein's a liar, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and inspections don't work, you know, you sort of point yourself in a direction where there's only one conclusion. The information was of extremely low quality, and I think these hearings will prove that. When you rely primarily on defector sources, human sources that are not proven in terms of their reliability, you've got a serious issue.

But the other problem is the filter that's supplied to this information. To give you an example, everybody said, well, Saddam is not cooperating with the inspectors; therefore, he must be hiding weapons. No one asked the question why he might not be cooperating. And the main answer is that the United States had a policy of regime removal, of using the CIA, using the weapons inspection process to gather intelligence on Saddam...

KAGAN: But, Scott, let me jump in here...

RITTER: ... to eliminate him from power.

KAGAN: Let me jump in here a second. Are you lumping together whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and a defense of Saddam Hussein? Are you going that far?

RITTER: Well, I don't ever defend Saddam Hussein. I defend the processes that lead us to war. I defend 170 Americans who have died in this war. And I have to ask myself why they died. And the answer, according to the president, is that Iraq posed a threat to the security of the United States of America in the form of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we need to focus on weapons of mass destruction and whether or not Saddam had them.

And I think it's important, therefore, to, you know, do a critical analysis of the policies of the United States in the lead-up to this war. And when you have a policy of regime removal, eliminating Saddam Hussein, it does in fact, you know, create a situation in Iraq where Iraq might not be as cooperative with weapons inspectors as we want them to be.

KAGAN: Yes, Scott, let me just jump in a second, because as we have this discussion, of course, we want to represent the other side. And there are very significant members of the Bush administration all the way up to the president himself defending the concept that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, at least before the war.

We want to listen to something that Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Inspectors were in Iraq for years and were forced to leave Iraq in 1998 without getting the answers that were needed with respect to what weapons remained, where they were, and what programs were still underway. So, there is no question, there is no debate here, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: And in the minute that we have left, I'd like to point out that the British came to the same conclusion about there being weapons of mass destruction. There has been the discovery of these mobile labs, and there are those people who insist it's just a matter of time.

Your final thoughts on that, Scott.

RITTER: Well, first of all, Colin Powell made my point when he noticed -- when he said inspectors left in '98. Iraq didn't kick the inspectors out. They were ordered out by the United States as part of this process of manipulating the inspections to achieve regime removal.

And, you know, you mentioned these two biological labs. They're not biological labs.

KAGAN: What are they?

RITTER: There is no evidence that they were used to produce biology. In fact, even when they say they could have been, they don't produce the weapons themselves. It's a fantasy. It's part of this self-delusion that's taking place here.

The bottom line: no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And I think we owe it to the service members who died and who are serving over there to find out, you know, why it is we've asked them to go to war.

KAGAN: Scott Ritter, thanks for joining us with your insight. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.





Inspector>


Aired June 3, 2003 - 07:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, the different and difficult situation. A U.S. official tells CNN that the CIA will give Congress information that led the administration to believe that Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction before the war. Critics have suggested the White House exaggerated the evidence to win public support of the war. Some members of Congress are calling for an investigation.
One man who said all along that the U.S. would find no smoking gun in Iraq is former U.N. weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, and he is joining us from Albany, New York.

Scott, good morning. Good to have you with us.

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thanks a lot. Good morning.

KAGAN: There will be two Senate investigations. What do you think that they will find, and what kind of conclusions do you think that they will meet?

RITTER: Well, it's really up to the Senate. Remember, we're dealing with a body here that collectively endorsed the president's drive towards war. And I think the Senate, in order to be effective here, not only has to take a critical look at the White House and the Bush administration and how they manipulated information, but how the -- you know, what role the Senate played in this.

Joe Biden and Richard Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had hearings last summer, which, you know, had a predisposition about, you know, Iraq's culpability in terms of possessing weapons of mass destruction. No one took a hard, serious look at this. So, I think there's a lot of blame to go everywhere. And if the Senate is simply going to go through another sham hearing, this process will lead us nowhere. They're going to have to take critical look at the entire process...

(CROSSTALK)

KAGAN: Well, Scott, you used the word "manipulation," so I'm wondering if you're thinking that it's bad information or it's the interpretation of people not hearing what they wanted to hear.

RITTER: Well, it's both. I mean, when you start off by, you know, defining a problem as Saddam Hussein's a liar, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and inspections don't work, you know, you sort of point yourself in a direction where there's only one conclusion. The information was of extremely low quality, and I think these hearings will prove that. When you rely primarily on defector sources, human sources that are not proven in terms of their reliability, you've got a serious issue.

But the other problem is the filter that's supplied to this information. To give you an example, everybody said, well, Saddam is not cooperating with the inspectors; therefore, he must be hiding weapons. No one asked the question why he might not be cooperating. And the main answer is that the United States had a policy of regime removal, of using the CIA, using the weapons inspection process to gather intelligence on Saddam...

KAGAN: But, Scott, let me jump in here...

RITTER: ... to eliminate him from power.

KAGAN: Let me jump in here a second. Are you lumping together whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and a defense of Saddam Hussein? Are you going that far?

RITTER: Well, I don't ever defend Saddam Hussein. I defend the processes that lead us to war. I defend 170 Americans who have died in this war. And I have to ask myself why they died. And the answer, according to the president, is that Iraq posed a threat to the security of the United States of America in the form of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we need to focus on weapons of mass destruction and whether or not Saddam had them.

And I think it's important, therefore, to, you know, do a critical analysis of the policies of the United States in the lead-up to this war. And when you have a policy of regime removal, eliminating Saddam Hussein, it does in fact, you know, create a situation in Iraq where Iraq might not be as cooperative with weapons inspectors as we want them to be.

KAGAN: Yes, Scott, let me just jump in a second, because as we have this discussion, of course, we want to represent the other side. And there are very significant members of the Bush administration all the way up to the president himself defending the concept that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, at least before the war.

We want to listen to something that Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: Inspectors were in Iraq for years and were forced to leave Iraq in 1998 without getting the answers that were needed with respect to what weapons remained, where they were, and what programs were still underway. So, there is no question, there is no debate here, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: And in the minute that we have left, I'd like to point out that the British came to the same conclusion about there being weapons of mass destruction. There has been the discovery of these mobile labs, and there are those people who insist it's just a matter of time.

Your final thoughts on that, Scott.

RITTER: Well, first of all, Colin Powell made my point when he noticed -- when he said inspectors left in '98. Iraq didn't kick the inspectors out. They were ordered out by the United States as part of this process of manipulating the inspections to achieve regime removal.

And, you know, you mentioned these two biological labs. They're not biological labs.

KAGAN: What are they?

RITTER: There is no evidence that they were used to produce biology. In fact, even when they say they could have been, they don't produce the weapons themselves. It's a fantasy. It's part of this self-delusion that's taking place here.

The bottom line: no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And I think we owe it to the service members who died and who are serving over there to find out, you know, why it is we've asked them to go to war.

KAGAN: Scott Ritter, thanks for joining us with your insight. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.





Inspector>