The definitive debunking of the arguments for a war on Iraq by the former weapons inspector who is a major voice throughout the international media, and who knows from the inside what the risks really are-both of not going to war and going to war.
During the seven years that UN weapons inspections took place in Iraq (until they were banned in 1998), Scott Ritter and other inspectors confirmed that Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme had effectively been destroyed. This undermines America's premise for waging war on Iraq. If the weapons aren't there, what is the war about?
Ritter and Pitt explore the White House's premises for war, and show the complete lack of any plausible link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, like Bush, has also called for the death of Saddam Hussein. Ritter and Pitt show why a forced 'regime change' is absurd and won't lead to democracy in a nation divided for centuries. And they have a bleak forecast of the possible consequences for American and British troops if there is a ground war.
Scott Ritter is a former UN Weapons Inspector (UNSCOM) in Iraq, and has served in the US Marines in the Gulf War, attaining the rank of major. He is a Republican who voted for George Bush but is a vocal opponent of the impending war. William Rivers Pitt is an expert on the Middle East, an activist, and a Democrat.