No Threat
                       A former weapons inspector rejects Bush's evidence
                       by Jon Wiener

                       SCOTT RITTER WAS SENIOR
                       U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR IN
                       Iraq from 1991 to 1998. For the last
                       couple of years, the former U.S.
                       Marines major has been a
                       high-profile critic of U.S. policy
                       against Iraq, arguing that Saddam
                       Hussein represents no military
                       threat. Last week, after President
                       Bush and British Prime Minister
                       Tony Blair claimed to have
                       evidence of new activity at a
                       suspected Iraqi nuclear-weapons
                       facility, Ritter traveled to Iraq and
                       visited the site with a group of journalists and TV cameramen to
                       demonstrate that Bush and Blair were wrong. He also spoke to the
                       Iraqi parliament in Baghdad, urging it to head off U.S. military action
                       by re-admitting U.N. inspectors and letting them do their job. A few
                       days later, Iraq told the U.N. it was willing to submit once again to
                       inspections. Jon Wiener spoke with Ritter before and after his visit
                       last week to Baghad.

                       L.A. WEEKLY: What can you tell us about Saddam and nuclear
                       weapons?

                       SCOTT RITTER: Clearly Iraq had a nuclear-weapons program. Of
                       the four categories of prohibited weapons, nuclear is the one we
                       most thoroughly eradicated. Especially the part of their nuclear
                       program that was dedicated to enrichment, to producing the highly
                       enriched uranium needed for the fissile core of a nuclear device. This
                       was wiped out, there was nothing left. For Iraq to reconstitute that
                       would require not only tens of billions of dollars of investment, but also
                       the reconstitution of entire industrial facilities that are easily detected
                       by our intelligence services. It would also require technology to be
                       purchased abroad, which is tightly controlled and not something Iraq
                       could do without being detected. I find it hard to believe the vice
                       president when he says Iraq is close to developing a nuclear weapon
                       -- they weren't anywhere near close in 1998, when inspectors left. If
                       some new development has transpired in the last four years, I wish
                       the White House would share that evidence with the American
                       people.

                       What about chemical weapons? We know that in the Iran-Iraq war
                       Saddam used mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the
                       Iranians, and he also used chemical weapons on the Kurds at that
                       time. What happened to that chemical-weapons capability when
                       you and the U.N. inspectors were there from 1991 to '98?

                       Iraq had a massive chemical-weapons industry, with gigantic
                       factories dedicated to the production of these deadly agents. They
                       did use them against the Iranians and against the Kurds, which is one
                       reason why the international community outlawed them in 1991. Once
                       inspectors went into Iraq, we not only destroyed the factories and
                       equipment that produced these agents, we also rounded up the
                       weapons and the precursor chemicals that are mixed together to
                       produce the deadly agent, and we eliminated them. We achieved
                       tremendous success in this area. We eradicated their mustard-agent
                       and their sarin- and tabun-agent production capability. If Iraq
                       managed to hide some of their nerve agent from us, it has a shelf life
                       of only five years, so today, with their factories destroyed, Iraq has no
                       nerve-agent capability -- unless they reconstituted their manufacturing
                       base, which no one has demonstrated.

                       VX is a different subject altogether. Iraq lied to us from day one about
                       VX. They said they never had a VX program. But we uncovered their
                       entire research-and-development plant, which had been bombed
                       during Desert Storm and destroyed. Using documentation recovered
                       from that, we were able to track down and discover Iraq's stockpile of
                       VX, confirming that it had been destroyed. We also exposed another
                       Iraqi lie -- that they had never stabilized VX. We even proved that they
                       put it in warheads, contrary to what they had declared. [But] the
                       bottom line is -- even though the Iraqis lied to us about VX, and we
                       still might have some concerns about this program, there is no VX
                       production capability in Iraq today -- unless Iraq went out after 1998
                       and acquired all this technology that we had destroyed.

                       The third category of weapons of mass destruction is biological. I
                       wanted to ask especially about anthrax.

                       For a biological weapon to work, you have to either turn it into an
                       aerosol, with particles of a certain size which can be inhaled into your
                       lungs, or a dry powder of a certain size, such as we found in the
                       letters that were mailed in October. Iraq successfully produced
                       biological agents: They produced anthrax and botulism toxin. But they
                       never successfully produced a biological weapon. They did put agent
                       -- liquid sludge -- into bombs and warheads, but the fact is, the only
                       way that was going to kill you was if it actually landed on you. They
                       had no way of disseminating the agent, it would have simply soaked
                       into the ground where it landed. We destroyed the factories that
                       produced this agent, we destroyed the production equipment, and we
                       destroyed the pieces of technology that Iraq could have used to
                       weaponize this agent.

                       There was some concern that Iraq might have produced more anthrax
                       than they declared. But liquid bulk agent of the type that Iraq
                       produced has a maximum shelf life under ideal conditions of three
                       years. After that it germinates and becomes useless sludge. For Iraq
                       to have biological weapons today, they would not only have to
                       reconstitute the manufacturing base to produce biological agent, but
                       they would have to perfect the technology to turn that agent into a
                       weapon, to aerosolize it or turn it into dry powder. They didn't have
                       that capability in December 1998, and no one has demonstrated that
                       they have that capability today.

                       Vice President Cheney in a recent speech said, "Saddam devised
                       an elaborate program to conceal his programs to develop chemical
                       and biological weapons." And he said, "The inspectors missed a
                       great deal" and that "The inspectors were actually on the verge of
                       declaring that Saddam's programs . . . had been fully accounted for,
                       a shutdown, but then Saddam's son-in-law suddenly defected and
                       began sharing information. Within days, inspectors were led to an
                       Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots
                       of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons program." What's
                       your comment on that?

                       A harsh comment. Either the vice president has been misinformed or
                       lied to by his own intelligence services, the CIA and others, or he
                       himself is lying. Let's set the record straight: In the spring of 1995, the
                       executive director of UNSCOM (United Nations Special
                       Commission), my boss, was prepared to make a finding that Iraq had
                       been fundamentally disarmed. We weren't going to give them a clean
                       bill of health. But we wanted to progress the issue of disarmament to
                       the point where we could talk about lifting economic sanctions. They
                       were crippling Iraq, causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to
                       lose their lives. We had fundamentally disarmed Iraq: That meant 90
                       to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons capability had been accounted for.

                       Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected in August 1995. We
                       achieved our final breakthrough prior to his defection. I have the
                       transcripts of the debriefs of the son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Listen to
                       what he said: "I ordered in 1993 that all remaining weapons be
                       destroyed. Today in Iraq there are no weapons. We destroyed them
                       all." How does Dick Cheney turn that statement into one saying
                       Saddam Hussein's son-in-law spilled the beans about Iraq's
                       weapons program? All he did was confirm our conclusion that in fact
                       these weapons had been destroyed.

                       So Dick Cheney is misleading the American public.

                       What were the circumstances that led the U.N. weapons inspectors
                       to leave Iraq in December 1998? The Bush administration and the
                       media often repeat that Saddam "kicked out" the weapons
                       inspectors, and that's why we face the necessity of war today.

                       Nothing could be further from the truth. The Iraqis did not kick the
                       inspectors out in December 1998. The Americans ordered the
                       inspectors out, and then bombed Iraq using intelligence information
                       gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein and his
                       security apparatus.

                       It's impossible to talk about the return of unfettered access until
                       there's some guarantee that the U.S. won't again use the weapons
                       inspectors as a vehicle for spying on Saddam, and targeting
                       Saddam. As long as the Americans continue to say that regime
                       removal is their number-one policy priority regarding Iraq, even
                       ahead of disarmament, we have no chance of getting weapons
                       inspectors back in.

                       What if we are shown evidence that Iraq now possesses weapons of
                       mass destruction?

                       I believe that not only would the Security Council approve military
                       action against Iraq under those circumstances, but we would have a
                       large and viable coalition supporting us. But if Iraq has these
                       weapons, the Bush administration needs to back up its rhetoric with
                       evidence to support it. The fact that they haven't suggests they don't
                       have the evidence, and that this is strictly about domestic American
                       politics.

                       You spoke to the Iraqi parliament, urging them to re-admit U.N.
                       weapons inspectors. What kind of response did you receive from
                       them?

                       First let me explain why I spoke there. It was not in order to address
                       Iraqi democracy. There is no democracy in Iraq. Their parliament is a
                       Baath Party organization. I picked the parliament to use it as a
                       platform to address the Iraqi government and also, frankly, to reach
                       an American domestic audience. Decisions in Iraq are made not by
                       the parliament but by the government -- and they were listening
                       closely. Not only at the parliament but in my meeting with [Foreign
                       Minister] Tariq Aziz and other ministers who advise the president. I
                       told them all the same thing: If they didn't let inspectors in, and give
                       them unfettered access, there would be war, and it would destroy
                       their country. That message was received openly and understood
                       clearly.

                       How do you interpret Bush's speech to the U.N. on 9/12?

                       If I believed the Bush administration was committed to disarming Iraq,
                       that their final objective was eliminating weapons of mass
                       destruction, I would be supportive of that speech. But it was a
                       hypocritical speech -- because the final objective of the Bush
                       administration is regime removal, pure and simple. Bush was saying
                       the U.N. has to agree to remove Saddam's regime. But that runs
                       counter to the U.N. Charter. The U.N. has never authorized regime
                       removal in Iraq. That is purely a unilateral U.S. policy. It's been
                       promoted since 1991 by James Baker under George Herbert Walker
                       Bush. Baker made it clear at that time that even if Iraq complied with
                       U.N. resolutions, sanctions would continue until Saddam was
                       removed from power. This statement undermined the ability of the
                       inspectors to work in Iraq. What motives do the Iraqis have to
                       cooperate when the U.S. says their cooperation is irrelevant? Clinton
                       and Madeleine Albright said the same thing. But no U.N. Security
                       Council resolution talks about removing Saddam Hussein from
                       power.

                       What's the next move?

                       The ball is now clearly in Iraq's court. The most important force that
                       can head off this war is the government of Iraq itself. They must allow
                       the unconditional return of U.N. inspectors with unfettered access.
                       They've made it clear that they won't agree unless they can guarantee
                       that inspectors won't be used to spy on them. There are some
                       promising developments on that front. The Canadian prime minister
                       appears to be ready to offer to serve as an honest broker between
                       the inspectors and Iraq. Canada would monitor their interaction to
                       ensure the inspectors don't go off task. Canada could be joined by
                       South Africa, the leader of the nonaligned movement. And the
                       government of Belgium, another member of NATO, is likewise
                       contemplating serving as a guarantor of proper behavior by the
                       inspectors. The question is whether these countries have the will to
                       step forward. No nation has exhibited that yet.

                       How much time do we have before war begins?

                       The U.S. Central Command is deploying battle staff to Qatar. Six
                       hundred officers will be positioned there in November. This means
                       we're going to war soon. We're already bombing the Iraqis frequently.
                       We already have troops deployed in the region. Deploying the battle
                       staff in November, I think, means war is going to start maybe as soon
                       as December or January.

                       Who did you vote for in the presidential election in 2000?

                       I voted for George Bush.