Who 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in Iraq? The facts.

From the rough transcript of my book 'War on Iraq':

=

PITT: Why were the UNSCOM inspectors pulled out in 1998?

RITTER: In August of that year, Richard Butler took a delegation to Baghdad for discussions. The Iraqis were fed up with what they felt to be foot-dragging and deliberately provocations. They felt the inspectors were probing inappropriately into areas that dealt with the sovereignty and dignity of Iraq, and its national security. They wanted to clarify these issues. Richard Butler came in with a very aggressive program, and the Iraqis announced they weren't going to deal with him anymore. They felt he was no longer a fair and objective implementer of Security Council policy, that he was little more than a stooge for the U.S. Butler withdrew, and the Iraqis said they weren't going to deal with UNSCOM. This led to Richard Butler ordering the inspectors out in October.

Actually, the Iraqis had said from the beginning they weren't going to deal with American inspectors. Then they relented, but said they wouldn't let Americans do anything other than ongoing monitoring. At that point, Richard Butler pulled out all of the inspectors.

The US prepared to bomb Iraq. The bombers were in the air. Then the Secretary General's office was able to get the Iraqis to agree to have the inspectors return without precondition, and the bombers were called back. But the Pentagon and White House felt they were being jerked around by the UN, so a decision was made to bomb anyway.

On November 30th of 1998, Richard Butler met with Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor, at the U.S. mission to the United Nations in what they call 'The Bubble,' the secret room where you can have protected conversations. Berger told Butler the US was going to bomb, and laid out the timeline. The bombing campaign had to coincide with inspection: the inspections were to be used as the trigger. So Richard Butler was encouraged to develop an inspection plan of action that met U.S. strike timelines.

Based on these conversations, Richard Butler decided to send in inspectors to carry out very sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis.

Now, Iraq had already come up with a protocol for conducting what are called "sensitive site inspections," after several inspection teams I was involved in tried to get into special Republican Guard and other sensitive facilities around Baghdad. The Iraqis had said, reasonably enough, that they didn't want forty intelligence officers running around these sites. Rolf Ekeus flew to Iraq in June of 1996 and worked out an agreement called the 'Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspections.' When inspectors came to a site that the Iraqis declared to be sensitive, the Iraqis had to facilitate the immediate entry of a four-man inspection element that would ascertain whether this site had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, or whether it was indeed sensitive. If it was sensitive, the inspection was over.

These 'Sensitive Site Modalities' were accepted by the Security Council, and became part and parcel of the framework of the operating instructions. And they worked, not perfectly, but well enough to enable us to do our jobs from 1996 to 1998.

After talking with Sandy Berger, Richard Butler, working in close coordination with the United States, said that when the inspectors went in to Iraq that December, they were to make null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities. He did this without coordinating with the Security Council. The only nation he coordinated with was the United States.

The inspectors went in to Iraq, and to a Ba'ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad. The Iraqis said it was a sensitive site but the four-person team was welcome to come in. The inspectors unilaterally made null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities, and said the entire inspection team was going to come in. The Iraqis compromised by allowing a six-man element to inspect. The element found nothing. Still the chief inspector, under orders from Richard Butler, demanded a much larger team be given access. The Iraqis responded that only under the Sensitive Site Modalities would they allow a team back in. The inspectors withdrew and reported to Richard Butler. Butler cited this as an egregious violation of the Security Council mandate.

Under orders from the United States, he withdrew the inspections teams. He did this in direct violation of a promise he had given to the other members of the Security Council: that he would never again withdraw inspectors unilaterally, that if they were to be withdrawn, he would go through the Security Council, inform them, and get their permission. The inspectors work for the Council. But Richard Butler took a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, deputy U.S. ambassador, executed his marching orders, withdrew the inspectors, and two days later the bombing campaign started, using Richard Butler's report to the Security Council as justification – his report saying, of course, that the inspectors weren't being allowed to do their jobs by the Iraqis.

????

and budding neocons. for example, after one bombing incident:

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were among the many newspapers that praised the President's firm leadership in the aftermath of the bombing of Baghdad and his willingness to send potential adversaries a message of American resolve. "Mr. Clinton is learning on the job," the Journal said.

see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

too bad it cost 500,000 iraqi kids their lives . . .

. . . but let's just thank jesus it was worth it:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

from http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html

but certainly Clinton was manipulated in many ways.

peace

since iraq is only a threat to OWOL if we can't extract it's oil at 'reasonable' prices.

we need to commit immediately to a national strategy backed by a massive spending program to get us off the oil habit before we kill everything :scared:

peace

and the media has gone blissfully along as if truth didn't matter.

:kick:

I'm sure you've read all the Scott Ritter letters, articles, and interviews from 1998 so I won't bother posting them.

One could actually make the case that Scott Ritter is directly responsible, to some degree, for the fucking mess we are in today. Has he ever apologized for this? Did you ever ask Ritter if he was involved in the VX hoax?

:cry:

I'll still buy your new book Will, as well as a few xtra copies for relatives and friends. I'm just not a big Scott Ritter fan. Or maybe you couldn't tell?

Peace
:hippie:

"Unofficial DU Thread Killer"