It's the same thing with Powell, whereas Bush and Cheney insist that inspectors back in Iraq will not do any good, Powell says that the option is open.. or is he? Seems strange.

Ritter's an asshat.

Link courtesy of Bill Quick:

[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

Can you say, "Gone native?" Either that, or he's using this as a CIA cover. Unfortunately, I think the first is more likely. Jerk.

Somehow I don't think this is a replay of the 'Dances with Wolves' story line.

Scott Ritter. ex-Intel guy. The reason the Navy coined the term 'shoe'* to refer to intel geeks.

*stupidest humans on earth

First Ritter spends a couple of years telling us how dangerous Saddam and Iraq are, then he does a complete 180 and says that Saddam is no threat, has no WMDs and that we'd be making a "horrible mistake" if we attack Iraq.

Judas got 30 pieces of silver, Ritter. How much did YOU get?

What I want to know - what the big mystery is to me - is why Ritter changed his mind after he was no longer on the inspections team.

Bribery as BarCodeKing suggests? I guess it's possible, but it just doesn't seem to ring true to me. Among other things, if you're going to bribe the man why not do it *before* that damaging Congressional testimony? Would a bribe be enough to bring someone to travel to Iraq physically, NOW of all times?

But I have no idea what the explanation might be. New facts? Surely he was in a better position to collect facts before the change of heart. I dunno.

According to a guy from Time magazine, interviewed on Fox earlier, the White House has a video of Saddam ordering executions, people are led away, and gunshots can be heard. But...apparently there's another video tape out there that shows Saddam himself executing his citizens. The White House is trying to get that tape, according to this guy.

I'm doing a 100 things at once, so I wasn't paying total attention, but I think that's pretty much what he was saying.

Is he married? Has close ties to someone who is vulnerable?? Could there be a Saudi version of the Mafia who has dumped a bucket of oil on the bed next to him while he was sleeping?

Methinks he doth protest too much to be credible...

"Iraq is incapable of producing weapons of mass destruction and should prove it by allowing in U.N. weapons inspectors, a former inspector said Sunday." They won't - because they aren't. If they were harmless, they wouldn't have kicked the inspectors out in the first place.

J.

My recollection is that Ritter resigned in protest from the UN inspection team, and at the time it was said that he didn't have a source of income. The question would be what his current source of income is, what his current lifestyle is. That shouldn't be too difficult to find out. Who paid his expenses for his trip to Iraq, by the way? Where's he staying? Who's minding him? All this should be fairly easy to get.

Can the Ritter/Bradley/Fisk/Pilger/McKinney/Chomsky mentality be explained? In his "Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," Leon Festinger suggested that sudden attitude change, including abandonment of reasonable positions in exchange for absurdities, will occur where conditions upset the ability to fix understanding. The state of hyper ambiguity, where demarcation between right and wrong is difficult, presents conditions conducive to polar inversion of behavior.

Check it out. But you people who believe that "islam is peace" because the oil-patch IL DUCE implanted that lie on your maleable brains, are no different from the pro-Islam scum mentioned above. Until Americans abandon the suicidal prostration relations with the terror-states of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, dissonance will continue to cause human pollutants like "Johnny (Walker) Jihad" and the "Shoe Bomber" to flourish. Cause: Indulgence. Effect: License.

Is this anathema to you: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"?

Can anybody remember a time in the US when it WASN'T considered acceptable to travel to a hostile country and voice your opposition to your native land's policies? Ritter, of all people, should know exactly what the Iraqi government has done in the past, is capable of doing now, and what its goals are in the future.

Even if Hussein wasn't actively seeking WMDs (and EVERYBODY knows he is), he's still a murdering tyrant, and this putz Ritter shouldn't be over their giving the Iraqi government free propaganda.

Somebody needs to start checking this traitor's bank accounts. I'm guessing he's been bought.

zulubaby, check this out: [Link: www.drudgereport.com...]

Even if the White House gets that video that supposedly shows Saddam Hussein murdering one of his opponents, it would only be one more demonstration that he is a megalomaniac. Every megalo from Al Capone to Idi Amin has probably offed someone in the middle of a rant.

What's more disturbing to me is signs of Alzheimer's disease in Saddam in recent years. The immense loss of weight and shrinking in size inside his uniform, the vagueness and rambling at meetings. He recently called his Iraqi Governors to a meeting and rather than give last minute instructions on preparations for the war, treated them to a long rambling harangue about public sanitation. They were gobsmacked. If he really is senile and still playing at silly-buggers with all his nasty toys, that scares me.

I say it's time for some changes all over the M.E. and he's as good a place to start as any. And let the damn chips fall. They wanted it, they didn't protest it; in fact they all cheered last fall; they can start updating their resumes!

[Link: www.falklands.org...]

Sunday Sept. 1, 2002; 12:21 p.m. EDT
Scott Ritter in Pro-Iraq Movie Deal

As many of his media colleagues have done in recent days, NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert invoked the name of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter on Sunday to bolster claims that the White House is overstating the threat posed by Iraq.

"Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has said that Saddam is not a threat; that while he was an inspector about 95 percent of his (WMD) capability was destroyed," Russert announced.

But while the former Marine who was booted out by Iraq in 1998 continues to be cited reverentially by Russert and others, they never seem to get around to mentioning Ritter's reported involvement in a pro-Iraq movie deal that depends on financing from an Iraqi-American supporter of Saddam Hussein.

"The U.S. will definitely not like this film," Ritter himself admitted to the Weekly Standard last November, as he described a return trip to Baghdad in July 2000 that was accomplished with Saddam's blessing.

He was visiting the terrorist state to work on his documentary film, "In Shifting Sands," the goal of which was to chronicle the weapons-inspection process and, according to Ritter, "de-demonize" Iraq.

Though the former weapons inspector claims his 90-minute documentary is objective, he told the Standard it was produced with the approval of the Iraqi government and features interviews with numerous high-level Iraqi officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

Saddam's one-time nemesis managed to secure the unprecedented access through the help of Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer who ponied up $400,000 for Ritter's movie.

Ritter confessed that al-Khafaji, who accompanied him to Iraq, is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." The well-connected businessman was apparently instrumental in getting him interviews with top Iraqi officials.

Though the former UNSCOM troubleshooter denies that al-Khafaji had any editorial input on the film, Ritter confessed that his documentary could have never been made without the pro-Saddam businessman's help.

"I tried to get independent sources to fund the movie," Ritter told the Standard before turning defensive. "People can talk about the funding all they want. If I'd been able to be bought -- from '95 to '98 the CIA paid me. Did I do their bidding?"

But the real question has nothing to do with whether or not Ritter has been unduly influenced by his recent cozy relationship with a regime the U.S. is set to attack.

The real problem is that the U.S. media continues to cite Ritter as an unbiased authority on the Iraqi threat without breathing a word about his nifty little pro-Iraq movie deal bankrolled by Saddam's wealthy booster.

thats why the 'press' is held in contempt

Here's your answer to his current income, courtesy of Bill Quick via NC:

He acknowledges, as well, that the U.S. government doesn't like how the film was financed. Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer living in Michigan, kicked in $400,000. By Ritter's own admission, al-Khafaji is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." Al-Khafaji, who accompanied Ritter as he filmed the documentary and facilitated many of the meetings, travels to and from Iraq regularly in his capacity as chairman of "Iraqi expatriate conferences." Those conferences, held in Baghdad every two years, are sponsored and subsidized by Saddam Hussein.

The conferences are little more than propaganda shows, designed to bash the United States and demonstrate to the world that Hussein has support even among Iraq's expatriate community. The official conference website posts several articles condemning U.S. "terrorism and genocide" against Iraq.

Ritter says al-Khafaji had no editorial input on the film project but that without his help, the movie would not have been made. "I tried to get independent sources to fund the movie," he says. "People can talk about the funding all they want. If I'd been able to be bought--from '95 to '98 the CIA paid me. Did I do their bidding?"

[...] Ritter was such a hawk and so critical of the Clinton administration's non-confrontational approach that he drew the ire of Senator Joe Biden. "They have responsibilities above your pay grade--slightly above your pay grade--to decide whether or not to take the nation to war alone or to take the nation to war part-way, or to take the nation to war half-way," the Delaware Democrat scolded. "That's a real tough decision. That's why they get paid the big bucks. That's why they get the limos and you don't."

Now he gets the limos. Cindy bint Kinney will prbably join him as soon as her term ends. Whores.

ploome: guess great minds think alike;-)

[Link: www.greatertalent.com...]

SCOTT RITTER

Former U.N. Weapons Inspector to Iraq

Exclusive Representation by Greater Talent Network

As a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq, Scott Ritter was labeled a hero by some, a maverick by others, and a spy by the Iraqi government. In charge of searching out weapons of mass destruction within Iraq, Ritter was on the front lines of the ongoing battle against arms proliferation. His experience in enemy territory served as the basis for his book Endgame, which explored the shortcomings of American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf and alternative approaches to handling the Iraqi crisis.

Now, Ritter is back in Iraq for a different cause. Filming a documentary, In Shifting Sands, he is bringing to light the death of over 1.2 million Iraqis due to UN economic sanctions. This documentary shows the true effects that sanctions are having on the Iraqi people while presenting an unwavering hardline on issues of international justice and global security. Ritter's powerful interviews with world leaders such as Kofi Annan-Secretary General of the UN, Tariq Aziz-Vice-Prime Minister of Iraq, and Vladamir Putin-acting President and Minster of Russia, give an eye-opening view of America and ramifications of the U.S. foreign policy from the international community's perspective.

At the lecture podium, Ritter delivers a first-hand account of the effect of the imposed sanctions on the Iraqi people. His impassioned discussion explores the area where justice meets compassion and covers the controversial topic of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter's own experience and insight serve to enlighten the audience on an important and underpublicized issue.

thanks, Mommydoc...

isnt google great..??

by the way...have you tried copernic.com

great search engine...

I agree on the posts about Ritter, but it's up to the Administration to go on the attack, and not just lament the situation.

There comes a point when Bush's civility boomerangs on his ability to marshal the nation to war and protect it from Fifth Columnists who should be held to account for their behavior in courts of law.

#10

In his "Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," Leon Festinger suggested that sudden attitude change, including abandonment of reasonable positions in exchange for absurdities, will occur where conditions upset the ability to fix understanding. The state of hyper ambiguity, where demarcation between right and wrong is difficult, presents conditions conducive to polar inversion of behavior.

More simply put, fools that never had a developed sense of ethics, no objective core of right and wrong will waffle under any given set of circumstances.

Scott Ritter's about face, judging from his historic remarks, seems less about ambiguity and more a man who has sold his soul to the devil.

His documentary deal should be flashed as a disclaimer every time he opens his mouth. It makes me sick that mainstream media simply refuses to do its homework.

Scott Ritter = Jane Fonda

Elizabeth #13

Maybe he’s saner than you give him credit for. This from Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connection -

Jidda, the city that styles itself as the bride of the Red Sea, harbours an extremely dirty secret. A toxic sea of raw sewage pumped from the city's septic tanks festers just inland, fed daily by at least 1,000 trucks dumping another 50,000 cm of sewage. (About 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools each day.) The fouled water then seeps into precious aquifers.
The fact that three quarters of Jidda, a cosmopolitan port of some 3 mm people, lacks a sewage system is merely the most pungent of Saudi Arabia's shortcomings.

And this from a country that actually gives a dam about infrastructure. Can you imagine the stench in Baghdad?

I have a purely speculative theory about Benedict Ritter. What if he was getting bribedwhile he was still a weapons inspector? This would explain his histrionics back in '98 because ending the inspections would dry up his payola. Now he has flipped because if we take out Saddam, the US will know if Ritter covered up anything and also may get access to Iraqi documentation that could implicate him. Seems plausible to me.

There's something of the John Bobbitt about Scott Ritter. Ever notice? They both when cleaned up have the short trimmed hair, the blue blazer- grey flannel look--sort of 'born again' Christian right look.

If Ritter is Christian right he may in some screwed up way see himself as extending the olive branch or trying to 'save the world' by speaking on behalf of Iraq and, of course, the little movie deal could be made to fit into his fantasy since he could co-opt it as being part of 'reaching out' to explain Iraq to the world.

But when these Christian boys go wrong, they go straight to hell and like John Bobbitt, Ritter may have sold his birthright for a pot of message.

BTW: Elizabeth, Not that it matters, but are you from Ireland? The "gobsmacked" remark (great term!) sounds like it:-)

My guess is that the most likely explanation for Ritter's behavior is ego, megalomania, the need to feed an inflated sense of self importance.

Things like this occur every now and then in the intelligence communities. You get, for example, intelligence fabricators who lead their case officers on in order to feel important. In Israel there was a retired case officer, Yehuda Gil (who I think has recently finished serving a prison term over it), who "invented" a non-existent agent, so that he could stay in the game and keep running the agent after his retirement. He kept (but never used) the money he was supposed to be paying the agent and everyone assumes his motive was psychological.

You also get ex-intelligence officers writing books that violate the official secrets laws in their respective countries. Usually ego or a desire to avenge a perceived insult or humiliation, and not money, is the motivating factor.

Sky News Australia is peddling Scott`s line. All of the media (radio,TV) gives little or no information then runs polls asking if the Prim minister is sucking up to the USA.

He likes the limelight.

If he wasn't acting up, who would Scott Ritter be?

A nobody

Is there any doubt how stupid Ritter will look when the Iraq campaign is over.

Is there any question his real estate buddy should be prosecuted for conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States?

The Alien and Sedition Act may be gone but it is still a crime to try to attack the country. The real-estate developer must be soiling his shorts for what might come out of Saddam's archives with his name on it!

Elizabeth,

Was it necessary to insult all of us "Christian Right" people by associating us with Scott Ritter? That short-haired, blazer and flannel look that Bobbit and Ritter share is probably due to the fact that they are both former U.S. Marines (though I'm sure that the Marines do not advertise that fact). How many Christians do you know or associate with? Sounds like not so veiled religious bigotry to me. All of us "wild eyed fundies" are all so very dangerous, right?

Just saw the beginning of BBC World News.

Guess what the lead story was?

David (#11),

You forgot to add that not only is Saddam a murdering tyrant, he also plotted to KILL A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! Ritter is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, pure and simple. I wish they wouldn't let him back in the US.

Ann

#20
There comes a point when Bush's civility boomerangs on his ability to marshal the nation to war

Good point. We're long overdue for some righteous anger, aimed squarely between the eyes of those who use freedom to subvert freedom.

And thank you ploome and mommydoc for the info on Benedict Ritter.

Another Ritter comparison might be Paul Robeson, though Robeson didn't do a 180 on Stalinism. If Ritter is getting by on funding for his "documentary", plus the lecture circuit, and is getting his ego fed by the media attention, then he's likely a "useful idiot" more than an agent.

I saw him on The News Hour about two weeks ago and wasn't impressed. He came off like a wise-guy NCO type who had everything all figured out, and was surprisingly short-tempered.

My impression is he's not bright enough to be doing this stuff deliberately. Dangling money and attention in his face was enough. Note the Weekly Standard reports that say he doesn't even acknowledge changing his posiiton.

Brandi in AZ/post #31 ...

Many Jews greatly appreciate the Christian Right and their support for Israel. I am one of them.

re: #4

Hey now, I was an Army 'intel geek during Desert Storm, and for a few years after.' I can tell you this from my experience - the folks who are in the field and doing the real intel work are bright folks. It's generally the people we're supposed to be collecting for - ie. the people we give the information to - that turn out to be the bumbling morons.

On another note - Scott Ritter was one out of how many inspectors? I haven't done any research yet, but out of all of the inspectors that were there, how many share his views? And why the hell is he the only inspector I see in the news?

W.

Brandi (#31)

Let me second dennisw's appreciation of the Christian Right for its courage in publicly supporting the Israelis throughout its fight for survival, now and in the past. Regretably, the media never conveys this in its coverage of the conflict--another casualty of the Left's propaganda machine.

But the realization by Jewish Americans that the Christian Right has been there for us--rather than the Democrats or the secular humanists or the Jewish liberals--has been seismic in scope this past year.

Our aggressive work to defeat Hilliard in Alabama and McKinney in Georgia is the most tangible evidence of that transformation. More will come.

It's a classic case of rectal-cranio inversion.

#28:

As it happens, AC Neilson rang me at home on Saturday morning to ask me my opinion of Nestlé's "Big Break", flavoured soy milk and Johnnie Howard's handling of the War on Terror.

I'm an "approve" but not a "strongly approve"

The Israelis say that three things motivate people: Koos (female anatomy) Kessef (cash) and Kavod (honor/ego). I think we can safely say he's under the influence of the last two.

If Ritter is Christian right

Elizabeth -- Ritter's turn around has nothing to do with religion -- unless you think he worships the dollar. I guess that's possible. I'd say the $400,000 minimum that's been funneled to his pockets from Baghdad has a lot to do with it.

I'd be very interested in knowing the family tree of Shakir al-Khafaji. He may be related to an Iraqi general who has relatives in Detroit.

My deepest apologies to the Christian right. I didn't put that very well. I'm an Anglican (Episcopalian) of Scottish-Irish descent myself. We go at Christmas, Easter and for Weddings an Funerals.

I was trying to convey the libertarian-type or as a friend of mine calls it, Pharleftistan, who always sees good in the worst hard cases and is always 'reaching out' and turning the other cheek. Of course, if he's getting all that much money, I suppose that could 'turn' him.

Ritter is very hard to read. He has NO charisma--is a real wooden head as a personality and somehow has made a name for himself enunciating first AGAINST Saddam, and now, puzzlingly, FOR him.

I'd be inclined to go by what Richard Butler says. He's a man who has an excellent world view, is not dogmatic yet knows when enough is enough. Butler seems to feel Saddam has a lot to hide.

Once again to the Christian right, my apologies.

He's Gore-delusional, Clinton-meglo & Wen Ho-loyal.

John B.

Thanks for the link on #12.

I'm sure we're going to hear more about that.

[Link: www.bostonphoenix.com...] - Ritter is "the David Brock of foreign affairs — not worth listening to."

[Link: www.bostonphoenix.com...] - Jon Stewart and Ritter

I don't know if anyone else has noticed the parallel, but Scott Ritter reminds me of Charles Lindbergh, circa 1939, telling us that Nazi Germany is not our enemy.

Elizabeth,

No problem. I was a little fired up when I read that post because I had just come home from church ;-)

"Pharleftistan." I like it! That's right up there with Idiotarian, Paleostinian, kleptocracy, thugocracy, etc.

group hug...:o)

this is a very stressful topic...

I so admire all you ethical intellectual people..

Ritter was publically humiliated during Congressional hearings in the 90's. The flip may be pique and revenge.

Ah, how easily people forget, or wish to deceive themselves, and how quickly history repeats itself. The Iraqis are pulling the old cheat/reconciliate (right before being bombed)/cheat/ etc. and they're also using people of less than credible distinction. They're also playing the victim card.

It speaks volumes for the UN and the rest of the world that instead of searching for a long-term solution to the problem, they are willing to settle for the band-aid of political expediency.

What's the difference between John Walker Lindh and Scott Ritter. (or Aldrich or Hanssen, etc.)

Fundamentally none. Lindh turned traitor because he was young, stupid, and admired a cult hidden within a religion. Ritter turned traitor when he and his oversized ego were stepped on by Clinton Administration and Congress and was bought off for a minimum of $400K.

Here's hoping Ritter is taken into custody for treason and sedition as soon as he returns. He can join Lindh in prison- just should be staying there for quite a while longer.

The Israelis say that three things motivate people: Koos (female anatomy) Kessef (cash) and Kavod (honor/ego). I think we can safely say he's under the influence of the last two.

Ah BigBad, but with kessef, you can BUY koos! And if your Saddam's favorite, you probably get it for free . . .

"Here's hoping Ritter is taken into custody for treason and sedition as soon as he returns. "

It's not treason if you're not at war

Here's the thing...

Ritter is obviously talking out both sides of his face. He wanted to continue inspections in Iraq, but he now says that all Iraqi weapons were eliminated. I would guess the money motive is the most likely one; he wanted to remain as an inspector indefinitely, and when that flow of money got cut off, he happily started taking money from Saddam to throw his weight against the war in Iraq.

However, this means that, in all likelyhood, the complaints by Hussein that the weapons inspectors had found all the weapons may actually be the truth. (Not sure about this, especially after the photos of the missiles the American team located... but then, since Ritter was in charge of the American team, this may have actually been a hoax after all.)

Ritter is obviously going to say whatever he needs to get money. If I were Bush, I would quit pushing the "threat of WMDs," and instead focus on Iraq's well-known contributions to conventional terrorism. If we do invade Iraq looking for WMDs, and end up finding none, the US's credibility even among our closest allies (and the most important group of all, the American voters) will instantly crater, and our War on Terrorism will come to a screeching halt.

After that, all we will be able to do is just sit here and wait for the inevitable nukes to start arriving...

Goat Boy:

If you're going to be anal about semantics, let me point out that the Gulf War never officially ended, and will not end until inspections are officially completed.

Stick that in your cardboard bong and smoke it.

i think mr. ritters argument is logical. we shouldnt be going after iraq now. (maybe later, or 5 yrs ago, but not now)

why not now? because we are going after terrorism...the war on terrorism, remember? iraq sucks, absolutely, but so do alot of other countries, and there a few more actors on the scene that need to be put down immediately if not soon. a invasion in Iraq can WAIT. you know why? cause we already waited 12 years, why now?

i think actual terrorist groups should be dealt with now, not beligerent states.

going after Iraq will have the same result as hitting Hiroshima had...(hopefuly many less casualties)

it will stop the terrorists in their tracks...

Iraq is the most dangerous of the 'axis of evil'...and the most vulnerable...

the others who support terror, Iran, Syria, Saudi and Egypt will understand...

"This weapons inspecting is so dull and tedious... what I really want to do, is direct."

Scott Ritter, just another Hollywood wannabe.

Jeffrey, thank you for your comment, which is how I, too, felt for a while.

However, the case for attacking Iraq is very strong. You may want to bear the following in mind:

1) Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism whose activities include but are not limited to the financing the martyrdom operations in Israel. As you may know, the whole Arab world from Morocco to Pakistan continues to be greatly agitated by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The sooner that situation can improve, the better for the entire region.

2) Iraq is actively engaged in a quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Given its history of previous use of WMD, this should be stopped.

3) Iraq is not compliant with 6 of the 9 (if my memory remembers these numbers correctly), conditions under which the Gulf War came to a close.

4) Iraq does have some ties to Al-Qaeda, and has cooperated with it in various ways.

There are other arguments also, but I'd be interested in hearing your responses to these.

"to the financing OF the ..." (sorry for that one word omission)

Ritter married a russian national, as a result the USMC pulled the pin on any further chance of advancement. He wanted to join the CIA but couldn't pass the security check because he married his wife before a background could be done on her. Ritter is smart, but unstable, prone to outbursts. Intell work needs people with smarts, but are level headed enough to take the ups, and downs of the work. Ritter, well, he lost it sometime in 1998 and is not trustworthly anymore.

As noted earlier, there is well-documented, public evidence that Saddam finances Palestinian Arab terrorists. "If you finance a terrorist, you are a terrosist."

Here is an article regarding Dr. Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to the US after being forced to work on Sadaam's nuclear weapons program:

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Did the U.S. succeed in getting rid of many of his weapons over the years the teams were there?

HAMZA: This is a false security. The whole structure of the biological program is there. What the U.S. destroyed is some of the product, biological agents, some fermenters, and some dryers, which can be replaced very easily, and most of them actually through local engineering capability.

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Mohammed Atta met Saddam prior to September 11: US official

Sunday, 08-Sep-2002 4:40AM

Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)

MILAN, Sept 8 (AFP) - Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary.

"Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday," Perle told Italy's business daily "Il Sole 24 Ore".

"The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq," added Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq.

"The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands," said Perle.

[Link: www.ptd.net...]