--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And then there's Scott Ritter and his team, who were the people in > charge of actually determining the facts on the ground. Ritter > consistently said > there were no WMDs, even after the invasion when the government > claimed to have found them! And turned out to be right, of course. > > Nobody arguing against the likelihood of Saddam having WMDs??? In > denial, Dan? The people in a position to know were only convinced > that he had programs with a goal build WMDs.
Even among "people in a position to know", Scott Ritter was an outlier Nick. Moreover, Ritter had not been "in charge of actually determining the facts on the ground" since 1998! And Scott Ritter, in his own book "criticized the current US policy of containment in the absence of inspections as inadequate to prevent Iraq's re-acquisition of WMD's in the long term." Of course, Ritter did not subsequently advocate regime change from this conclusion, but it still is worth noting that he felt that the sanctions regime was inadequate. > It is perfectly clear that it was the consensus of the intelligence > community, not to mention the reality -- that Iraq posed no > immediate, imminent, urgent or mortal (White House words) threat > to the United States. You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is "immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal" is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
