In Scott Ritter's congressional testimony in 1998, he charged the Clinton Administration with appeasing Saddam and not allowing the inspectors to do their jobs. In an angry exchange with Senator Biden, Biden accused Ritter of wanting the ability to go to war whenever his ability to conduct inspections were denied.
By 2002 Scott Ritter had sunk well into being an Iraqi stooge, penning op-eds like this, which claimed that Biden was actually the one who wanted to remove Saddam while Scott Ritter wanted to protect Saddam's regime.
"Given Sen. Biden's open embrace of regime removal in Baghdad, there is a real risk that any such hearings may devolve into a political cover for the passing of a congressional resolution authorizing the Bush administration to wage war on Iraq. Such hearings would represent a travesty for the American people."
How did Scott Ritter devolve from committed critic of the Clinton administration who argued that Iraq had extensive WMD's that needed to disarmed, by force if necessary, to a stooge for Saddam's regime who took on a post writing for Al-Jazeera, accusing America of creating death squads to murder his Baathist buddies and praising them as a "genuine grassroots liberation movement?"
A big part of the answer came when Scott Ritter was arrested twice for attempting to set up meetings with two underage girls, one whom he believed was under 14, the other 16. First Ritter lied about being arrested and then claimed the whole thing was all a conspiracy against him. The Albany arrests for Ritter made it rather obvious what his price was.
In the days of the Cold War, Soviet intelligence services were adept at exploiting drug use and sexual weaknesses in ranking foreign personnel to subvert and enlist them.
Here is Scott Ritter again commenting on a children's prison he discovered and whose existence he covered up.
"The prison in question 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."
With Saddam overthrown, Ritter's access to Saddam's child prisons "too horrible to describe" for a proud wager of peace, had no doubt run out and he had to resort to 14 year old girls on the internet.
This was Scott Ritter in November 2nd, 1998 on Good Morning America.
Lisa McRee: What are they hiding?
SCOTT RITTER: They are hiding their retained capabilities in biological, chemical, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.
Lisa McRee: Can you be more specific about what you believe they have?
Scott Ritter: I think one of the things that has been in the news recently is the VX nerve agent, one of the most deadly substances known to mankind. Iraq clearly produced this agent in large quantities and put it on ballistic missile warheads. They have lied about that, they have said that they have not done this, despite the fact that we have the proof in our hands.
Lisa McRee: What's our appropriate response, then?
Scott Ritter: It's time to call the game for what it is. This is Saddam Hussein's attempt to keep weapons of mass destruction and get sanctions lifted. Saddam is linked with these weapons, there is no way of dealing with the weapons without dealing with Saddam.
Lisa McRee: But do what? Should we have a military strike against Iraq? Should it be unilateral or should we do it only with allies? What do you suggest?
Scott Ritter: These are issues that have to be addressed by the national security policy team in Washington, DC, that's what they get paid the big bucks for.
Lisa McRee: What do you think will work, though? You've been there.
Scott Ritter: I know what won't work, continuing to provide concessions to Iraq only feeds their strength. Iraq is in charge of this game right now. They are the ones calling the shots. It's time for the United Nations, the [national] security council of the United States to seize the initiative to start taking more proactive measures to counter Saddam Hussein. And whatever measures they take, they are going to have to be decisive and not the half steps that have been taken so far.
Lisa McRee: Are you talking about economic sanctions or are you talking about an attack [i.e., war]?
Scott Ritter: Economic sanctions won't work, we know that. Iraq has turned economic sanctions around and used it against the United Nations and United States. I think you are coming to the obvious point, but that is a decision that the national security team has to make, not Scott Ritter.
It was not Senator Biden calling for war, it was Scott Ritter.
By 2002 though Scott Ritter was taking a guided tour of Iraq paid for by Saddam's regime and delivering a speech to the Iraqi Parliament where he declared that Iraq had no WMD's and was not a threat to anyone.
What happened specifically to Ritter after 1998? Between 1998 and 1990? Scott Ritter had continued his work this time in Russia, on disarmament. While still married to his first wife, Ritter began an affair with 19 year old Marina Khatiashvili, his Russian supplied translator and escort.
Under the USSR anyone working with foreigners, especially foreigners tied to foreign diplomatic or military service, without exception reported to the KGB. Ritter himself penned numerous reports at the time stating that the Soviets were using the "young girls" to sexually compromise the inspectors. Later Ritter would deny writing these reports. Finally Scott Ritter would divorce his wife and marry the young girl who had been provided for him and the rest of his career would get uglier and uglier.
The critic of Saddam's regime had by 2005 turned into not merely a critic of the Iraq War or the US presence, but an outright cheerleader for the Sunni Ex-Baathist terrorists, who were themselves closely tied to Russia.
Consider the following Al Jazeera piece Scott Ritter penned this.
"The Sunni-based resistance, having been targeted by the Badr assassins, struck back with a vengeance.
In a campaign of targeted assassinations using car bombs and ambushes, the resistance has engaged in its own campaign of terror against the Shia, viewed by the Sunni fighters as being little more than collaborators of the American occupation.
...History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government.
In the 30 years of Saddam's rule, the Baathist government and its security organs were very successful in infiltrating the ranks of Kurdish and Shia opposition movements.
The Shia and Kurds, on the other hand, have no history of being able to do the same to the Sunni. If anything has emerged as the undisputable truth in post-invasion Iraq, it is that the Iraqi resistance knows Iraq infinitely better than the American occupiers."
Note here that Scott Ritter is not merely supporting the terrorists. He is praising and celebrating the Sunni Baathist terrorists, the remnants of Saddam's mass murdering regime while dismissing the Shiite terrorists as "American Puppets." This is a purely Sunni Baathist line. It is not simply Anti-American, it is Pro-Baathist. There is no better evidence of who Ritter is working for.
Then there's the direct cash payments.
"In 1999, Scott Ritter was approached by a Detroit area businessman with links to Saddam Hussein, to make a film about the "devasting effects" that U.N. Sanctions have had on Iraq. Ritter completed the film in July of 2000. Ritter was paid $400,000 to complete a one person, two camera, ninety-minute "documentary."
On September 13th 2002, Scott Ritter was interviewed by CNN's Paula Zahn. In the interview, Zahn asked Ritter if he thought $400,000 was an "unusual amount" of money to film a documentary. Ritter's response was "no" he didn't think the amount was high. Ritter then went on to say that "other funding sources" had also been located to help pay the expenses of the trip."
In 1996 though Scott Ritter had suddenly learned to love Iran, whose terrorists he had been earlier condemning as American Stooges. The shift of course was timed with a change of perspective in Moscow that increasingly turned from its Baathist allies who had become increasingly unlike to regain control of Iraq, to the Iranian backed Shiites who looked like a better and better bet.
"AMY GOODMAN: Scott Ritter, you just returned from Iran?
SCOTT RITTER: I came -- I was in Iran in early September, yes.
What an eye-opening experience to be on your own in a nation that has been called an Islamic fascist state. I have been to dictatorships in the Middle East. I have been to nations that have a high security profile. Iran is not one of these nations. I’m a former intelligence officer who has stated some pretty strong positions on Iran, and yet I had full freedom of movement in Iran with no interference whatsoever...It’s a very modern, westernized, pro-Western, and surprisingly pro-American country that does not constitute a threat to the United States whatsoever."
Note that Scott Ritter is going again well beyond opposition to war. He's celebrating and praising Iran as a wonderful Pro-Western country, a modern country that is not at all an Islamic fascist state... despite hanging teenage girls, whipping people at mixed parties, backing and funding numerous Islamic terrorist groups including Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
What is blatantly clear is that Scott Ritter is not serving as liberal a war critic, he is openly praising and promoting murderous and bloody regimes. And the liberals interviewing him and printing his pieces nod along and say nothing. Amy Goodman does not question his assessment that Iran is a wonderful place. All she's interested is in interviewing someone who will damn another American imperialist plot. Never mind that she's giving the floor to a man who is serving as an apologist for a regime that regularly tortures and murders women.
Now Scott Ritter is back in the limelight with a book blaming the whole thing on Israel claiming the "Israel Lobby" is engaging in espionage and was behind the Iraq War and a new war against Iran.
"The Bush administration, with the able help of the Israeli government and the pro-Israel Lobby, has succeeded in exploiting the ignorance of the American people about nuclear technology and nuclear weapons so as to engender enough fear that the American public has more or less been pre-programmed to accept the notion of the need to militarily confront a nuclear armed Iran."
Later in the book, Ritter adds: "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else."
Of course it's all the fault of the Jews. The Jews running America who have brainwashed everyone into thinking nuclear technology in the hands of a madman might be a bad idea. Let's flash back to Scott Ritter's own past literary efforts.
Ex-U.N. arms inspector: Bomb Iraq - SF Examiner
New York - Former United Nations arms inspector Scott Ritter has signed a contract to write a book in which he spells out his suggestions for dealing with Iraq: Bomb the country and overthrow its leader, Saddam Hussein.
"Nothing less will work, and nothing less is justified," Ritter is quoted as saying in Simon & Schuster's announcement Tuesday of his book, "The Iraq Solution," due out in April.
Ritter's book will discuss Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Kurds and Iranians, and "why he must be stopped" before he uses mass-killing weapons again, the publisher said.
Ritter, an ex-Marine, created a stir Aug. 26 when he quit the United Nations Special Commission that monitors Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He said then that the panel's efforts were being undermined by vacillating American and U.N. policy-makers.
Scott Ritter who had made half a career of promoting a War with Iraq, claims it's the Jews and the Israeli lobby who were behind the War in Iraq and now the non-existent War in Iran.
"The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent."
Of course Scott Ritter himself who has made the other half of his career interfering with American domestic policy while married to a Soviet agent, who was considered compromised and a security risk even by the Clinton administration, who does open propaganda work for foreign regimes and has received payment from them... need not register as a foreign agent.
The ultimate irony in Scott Ritter's latest vicious cycle of hypocrisy is that under the Clinton Administration, Ritter himself had been charged with inappropriate contacts with Israeli intelligence services in obtaining reports and information about Iraq. At the time the CIA had refused to work with him and his superiors had raised the possibility that he was an Israeli agent. In reality of course Ritter was actually determining what Israel knew on behalf of his real superiors in Baghdad and Moscow.
Scott Ritter has managed to be both a passionate advocate of War in Iraq and a passionate advocate of Saddam's regime. An advocate of Baathist campaigns against Iran and an advocate of Iran. A pursuer of inappropriate contacts with Israeli intelligence services and a vocal advocate accusing everyone else of being an Israeli agent.
How exactly Scott Ritter was compromised will only be found if he's actually ever arrested and charged, but between his tendencies for young girls and his isolation and seduction in Russia, he was compromised and an offer was made. Ritter's egotism remained the one common denominator, the need to be important, a crusader and a public figure. Never mind that everything that came out of his mouth was a blatant contradiction with the statements that he had made, statements that were not merely "opinion" but informed statements made as a UN Weapons Inspector.
What is more obscene than Ritter's pedophilia and his willingness to serve as the whore of Saddam or Iran, so long as he gets paid and gets his headlines, is that the media is increasingly willing to treat him as a legitimate critic of the Administration, utterly ignoring everything else.
The Forward, which has become a downright hate site, when it comes to politically correct bashing of Israel, does not cite any opposing view to Ritter or deal with any of the contradictions and lies that have issued from Ritter and have been cataloged extensively by his right and left wing critics. As so many others have done in the past
As so often continues to happen, Ritter is given a forum to spew his lies and invective. His claims go unchallenged, even when they degenerate into outright anti-semitic invective. The very same outlets and journalists that want to pretend to be serious critics of the Bush Administration and yet give Scott Ritter a forum are acting no differently, than when they put on Soviet stooges to lecture on the evils of Ronald Reagan.
The same publications and stations so eager to hear the usual bashing of Bush and claims that Iran is a great place that doesn't threaten anyone, abandon what's left of their own credibility and morals and in doing so becomes stooges themselves.