Is this the same Scott Ritter who helped write the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. The report that solely indicates the discrepencies in the Iraqi records that provided the information on what Iraq may have possessed that appeared verbatum in the so-called "Dodgy Dossier" of September 2002.

The Scott Ritter who came out with this on 31st August 1998 on the Online News Hour Show:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but between August 1998 and November 2002 Scott Ritter never returned to Iraq and in that period there were no UN weapons inspections.

Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998.

In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented.

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that were not being complying with.

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Now then Stingsinger, you said:

Somehow, I would trust Scott Ritter's opinion over that of Teribus who also has an "opinion".

Only thing is I have not changed my view point, I have not changed my opinion, reading the above it would appear that Scott Ritter and myself are on the same page.

More on Scott Ritter after leaving UNSCOM:

1. In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date.

2. In the same book, Ritter criticized the current U.S. policy of containment in the absence of inspections as inadequate to prevent Iraq's re-acquisition of WMD's in the long term.

3. Ritter promoted a conciliatory approach toward Iraq in the 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq, which he wrote and directed. The film tells the history of the UNSCOM investigations through interviews and video footage of inspection missions. In the film, Ritter argues that Iraq is a "defanged tiger" and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities.

OK then Stringsinger, the man has not been to Iraq for two years, neither has anybody else. What has caused him to change his mind?? What new information did he have and where did he get it from?? Why would the source of this new information give it to a private citizen as opposed to UNSCOM who at that time still existed?? Who would you have given the information to?? I sure as hell know who I would have given it to in order for it to have the most beneficial effect.

Ritter's Iraq War Predictions

"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win... We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable... Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost,"

Didn't quite pan out that way did it Stringsinger.

On Iraq's lack of WMD in 2002:

In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

1. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

2. We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

3. If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple.

4. As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

Excuse me but WTF happened to:

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program. - Scott Ritter