Rating: 
Summary: Questions and Answers Not Discussed in the Major Media
Review: I was very impressed with the questions and answers discussed in the book. I have not seen such questions or answers discussed in the major media. They include: (1) What percentage of weapons of mass destruction and what production site were discovered by the UN inspections and destroyed? (2) Does what remains constitute a weapons program? (3) Do chemical weapons have a shelf-life such that they degrade over time and any remaining chemical weapons are useless? (4) Is Saddam Hussein's relative alleging a nuclear program credible? (5) How does Scott Ritter respond to the challenges to his credibility? In all, I thought the authors presented a persuasive case against war in Iraq that the US administration needs to address.
Rating: 
Summary: Very biased and full of disinformation
Review: I have followed Pitt's previous works and read many interviews with inspector Ritter, so I eagerly anticipated this book. However many times it contradicts itself and tries to pass opinion off as fact. The facts are few and far between, and many of the arguments leave out points. It could have been presented so much better, but instead leaves the reader feeling cheated.
Rating:
Summary: If you want the truth, this is the book
Review: The title of my post sums up the content of this small, but mighty book. William Rivers Pitt delivers a no-nonsense overview of the Iraq situation in a concise and easy-reading style. Buy several and pass them on to friends. Let them read the unvarnished truth rather than the ratings driven sensationalism offered by the media.
Rating: 
Summary: Required reading for Americans
Review: This book is divided into three sections: a mini-chapter that sums up the author's position, a mini-chapter that provides some background history on Saddam Hussein's reign, and a lengthy interview with Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector for the U.N.Yes, it's a very short book, and very basic. But that's exactly what most Americans need now. I didn't know many basic historical facts about the country my President is about to invade--now I know them. Anyone who wants to begin educating themselves, and isn't allergic to left-wing propaganda, should pick up this book. Learn why Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons (they no longer have factories and the stuff doesn't have a long shelf-life), why we don't want to install a democracy there (they are divided ethnically, so one group would have to rule over the others, and none is a good choice for America), and frightening prophecies (Bush is likely to drop the first nuke if our troops get into trouble). An accessible, thought-provoking book that makes a strong case for diplomacy and against pre-emptive strikes.
Rating:
Summary: Let there be truth
Review: Presently, the Bush administration is distinguishing itself to the world by insisting a war with Iraq is a technical invevitability, while convieniently failing to disclose an endless stream of weapons inspectors from all political perspectives have confirmed Iraq's weapon's programs are destroyed. Thus, the administration's real policy agenda is the launching of a preemptive war with Iraq which would idealistically end with Bush's big business (and oil buddies) flodding previously forbidden markets with Western products. It's a tired arguement that bears more than a chilling semblance to those used by Johnson's Vietnam team (themselves formely the heads of major American multinational corporations) in assuring the president of an easy victory. History of course, reveals a far different picture. Indeed, an administration whose foregin policy immediately following 9/11 was focused on finding Osama Bin Laden "mysteriously" shifted to the 'immediate' threat Iraq posed even as the country's surrounding neighbors (who would theoretically have much peace of mind in a world without Saddam) are urging us not to follow through on our narrow minded fanatical zeal. Great Britan, once a lukewarm ally is even rethinking it's mild support with the realization evidence has not been produced to warrant UN action. If the two countries acted against Iraq, they would become the very rouge states they supposedly are opposing. Although Bush's handlers and spin doctors are undoubtedly trying to paint opposition to war against Iraq as the timless liberal versus conservatives debate, the fact that Republican-identified individuals such as this author, members of Congress, and the everyday citizens the president supposedly claims to care about are all asking tough questions clearly demonstrates good people of concience are refusing to play the global bully.
Rating:
Summary: You MUST read this book!
Review: Intelligent, thought provoking and controversial (as you will see from the varied reviews & comments on this book!). A must read for anyone who cares about this important issue. It will be interesting if the weapons inspectors in Iraq confirm what Ritter's saying. They have already inspected nearly 250 sites and there's no sign of these weapons of mass destruction that Bush & Blair keep trying so hard to scare us about. Let's see whether Ritter is right or not...
Rating:
Summary: a "MUST READ" for those not swooning to the tune of fascism
Review: In few words, "War on Iraq" gets to the bottom of America's most pressing, important question: Do we allow the ego of a corporate sponsored president driven by greed ..., to carry fundamental values and ideals of our country into the sewer of arrogance and ignorance ...? William Rivers Pitt provides conduit for Scott Ritter (one of America's true patriots) to share his wealth of knowledge on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and all them supposed "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Bush keeps [talking] about. Through it, we learn what we already instinctively know, from facts hammering loudly in that part of our mind where common sense resides. . . That this weird country of too much sun, sand, and oil (let's not forget OIL) - after being bombed for ten plus years by the US in an unsanctioned, unceasing, and uncovered (by American press anyway) air campaign. . . deprived of commerce; citizens left to squalor in dire poverty, children dying in astronomical, unbelievable numbers from starvation and easily curable diseases. . . that this country which barely survived America's profitable Gulf war (yes: we actually DID make money on the last one), is totally incapable of building ANYTHING - other than perhaps more of those grotesque gaudy palaces where it's ... leader, can hide from the CIA in.
Which leads to another, perhaps even more important question: What are we as American citizens - the threat of the "Patriot Act" with it's massive assault on the Bill of Rights, prepared to do about it - especially with Dubya's new secret police watching our every move, waiting for American to act out in civil disobedience ...
Rating:
Summary: A Republican causes discord in a jingoist frenzy
Review: Ritter says that Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and nuclear weapons were completely destroyed. It's capability to produce Sarin and Tabin Nerve gas and other chemical weapons was destroyed too, with the destruction by the inspectors of the Muthanna state establishment. The Iraqis were weaponizing VX nerve gas but they were discovered, the stocks destroyed, 200 crates of gas lined equipment discovered and destroyed. "With that Iraq lost its capacity to produce VX." Iraq was producing liquid bulk anthrax but its capability to do that was destroyed. He writes that discussion of the Iraqis turning L-29 single jet Czechoslovakian engines into drones to deliver chemcial and biological weapons is abusurd for to do so would be very detectable and he says that his old friends in the Israeli military says that such a conversion has not been detected. In short he says, Iraq's capabiility to produce Chemical, biological, nuclear long range missles and delivery systems were completely dismantled by the inspections. To rebuild it would be pretty difficult and expensive and easily detectable which it has it not been. One interesting thing he refers to is the case of weapons inspectors not looking for biological weapons in Saddam's palaces in 1998. The U.S. inspector Dick Spertzel, says Ritter, refused to look for biological weapons in the palaces, even though there was so much talk about the time how we have to find anthrax which Saddam is producing because he's going to kill us all, and so on. Ritter writes that if the Iraqis were hiding any stocks of biological and chemical before December 1998 then those stocks would have lost their viability now. He points out how the U.S. used UNSCOM's video and listening devices to spy on the Iraqi government on matters unrelated WMD. He writes that Butler led the way in seeking an excuse for the U.S. to disrupt the inspections. He violated the Sensitive Sites agreement of 1996 by sending in 12 inspectors in November 1998 to a Ba'ath party headquarters in Badghad, the Iraqi's compromising by only allowing in four as was called for by the Sensitive sites agreement. The headquarters was not covered in that agreement. This was cited as proof of Iraqi obstructionism and two days before Operation Desert Fox began, Butler received a phone call from deputy U.S. ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh and withdrew even though the security council was supposed to tell him when to withdraw. Thus Saddam did not kick out the inspectors as current propaganda has it. He refers to one incident where a lady inspector caught some of Saddam's bodygaurds tyring to run away from headquarters with suitcases and as they started to translate the documents contained within they though it was decisive evidence of biological weapons work but it eventually turned out to be related to testing for poison in Saddam's food. Yet Richard Butler is fond of repeating this story today as decisive proof of Iraq's Biological weapons research. As for Khidre Hamza, who has been getting so much attention in the media, Ritter says that he is a fraud, not Saddam's former bombmaker but only a mid-level bureaucrat in the nuclear program. He defected in 1994 says Ritter but the intelligence community rejected him as misrepresenting himself. He wasn't a designer of weapons, certainly not the head of the program. Ritter says that Hamza's alleged "smoking gun" document about Saddam getting a nuclear bomb was dismissed as a forgery by the late Hussein Kamal back in 1995. As for Saddam and Bin Laden, he says that the evidence points to Mohammed Atta being in Florida at the time he was supposed to be in Iraq. Bin Laden views Saddam as a secular dictator, the devil incarnate and Saddam has spent his career butchering fundamentalists, particularly of the Wahabi school. An alliance between them is unlikely. He says that there is no evidence that Salman Pak camp south of Bagdhad is used to train terrorists. It was set up in the 80's with the help of British special forces as a training camp for hostage rescuing. After that it was turned over to the department of External threats to deal with Islamic fundamentalists infiltrating into Iraqi Kurdistan from Iran.
Rating:
Summary: Not recommended
Review: I do not recommend this book. It is composed of two parts (a) a commentary by William Pitt on Iraq. His brief history of Iraq and the associated politics is helpful but colored by his obvious political agenda. (b) the second part is an interview of Scott Ritter by Mr Pitt. Mr Ritter inappropriately blames former UNSCOM chief (Butler) for the breakdown of UN inspections and monitoring, and dismisses information from Hamzah (the Iraqi nuclear physicist who defected) as trivial. Mr Ritter is obviously well-informed about many aspects of the Iraq issue, however the valid points he makes are so intertwined with assertions of his own claims to the facts that it would be difficult to understand the true complexity of the Iraq problem if this were the only book one read on the subject. I highly recommend an alternative book "The Threatening Storm" by Ken Pollack; it provides a comprehensive and balanced view. Two other books by Hamzah and Butler are also worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: a book to misinform the uniformed
Review: I was disappointed.. after reading all of these positive reviews I really thought this would be a great book. It isn't. its a long Q&A session with a former weapons inspector, blended with background on how the Imperial states carved up the middle east. After reading this book I discovered that back in 1998-1999 Mr. Ritter(weapons inspector) was on television asserting contradictory claims. This caused me to question Mr. Ritter's credibility. I wouldn't recommend this book, I would suggest buying Choamsky's. It is a strong articulation of our opposition to this war.
| 
