From the San Diego CityBEAT comes a great interview with Scott Ritter about his new book and his opinion on the war in Iraq. He makes many excellent points - most of which will be familiar to libertarians (or at least acknowledged). I have to admit that he's been pretty fearless in standing up to the Administration, and looking back he's been 100% right. His lack of political angles, however, puts him over the top on this subject. When asked about the Clinton Administration's belief that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - a fact cited by apologists for Bush's use of faulty intelligence - he does not equivocate in the slightest:
I'm not going to defend the Clinton administration. I fully believe that the Bush administration should be investigated for lying, and lying in the course of official duty constitutes a felony, and I believe that there are many members of the Bush administration who could be brought up on felony charges for misleading Congress, misleading the American people-but don't stop at the Bush administration! This goes back to the Clinton administration. Sandy Berger is a liar every bit as much as Condoleezza Rice is. Madeleine Albright's a liar every bit as much as Donald Rumsfeld is. I mean, they've all lied about the same thing, which is that Iraq represented a threat in the form of weapons of mass destruction that warranted military action. I would agree with anybody who said Iraq [could not be certified] as being 100 percent in compliance with its obligation to disarm. That's why I was always in favor of letting weapons inspectors back in to finish the job-but letting them finish the job in accordance with the mandates set forth by the [U.N.] Security Council, not the unilateral policy object of regime change that was embraced by both the Clinton administration and Bush administration, thereby corrupting the integrity of the inspection process. But, no, Clinton's just as bad as Bush-the only difference is, he just bombed them; Bush invaded. But let's never forget: Under Clinton, another form of warfare took place, and that is the economic sanctions that the United States would never allow to be lifted regardless of Iraq's compliance level with its disarmament obligations. And these sanctions have killed far more people than George W. Bush's war has.
Anytime we can remove partisan politics from the conversation on Iraq, we have an opportunity to better understand this war. Because one thing that is important to understand is that American elites wanted this war. Democrats and Republicans serve these elite interests, sometimes at cross-purposes, sometimes in tandem (the Congressional authorization of force against Iraq is a good example of a compliant Democratic Party). However, don't think for a minute that Gore Administration would not have done the same.
We don't need a Democratic version of the same policies anymore than we needed a Republican version in 2000. We need change. And until a real alternative is provided us, we should operate as if we lived in a one-party state. The sooner we acknowledge the lack of any pretense of self-determination and authentically democratic control, the sooner we can begin the painful but necessary process of healing.
NOTE: This is the type of post (me pointing you towards another article I like) that normally will be going into the LinkBlog. I reserve the right to post about whatever the hell I want, but I'd like to keep original writing and mere linkpimping separate.
Read this article
