As the White House accelerates their plan to declare war on Iraq, Congress held hearings on U.S. policy toward Baghdad, which heard testimony from a string of retired generals, government officials and military analysts who almost unanimously endorsed the Bush administration's goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power. But while the witnesses stated their support for "regime change," some expressed concern that an attack on Iraq would entail many risks and would not be easy. Underscoring this concern were press reports which quoted senior U.S. military officers who contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States would be better served by continuing its policy of containment rather than launching an invasion of Iraq.

As the drums of war beat ever louder, Baghdad invited a congressional delegation to look for weapons in Iraq with the military experts of their choice. That offer was immediately rejected and dismissed as a "delaying tactic." Skepticism also greeted Iraq's invitation to the head of the United Nations inspection commission, Hans Blix, to resume discussions on returning international weapons inspectors to Iraq four years after they were withdrawn in advance of a U.S. bombing campaign there.

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with Scott Ritter, a former chief United Nations weapons inspector who served in Iraq in that capacity for 7 years. Ritter takes a critical look at recent congressional hearings on Iraq and assesses the Bush administration's contention that Baghdad's possession or development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, poses a grave risk to the U.S. and warrants aggressive action.

For more information on the campaign to oppose a U.S. war in Iraq contact Voices in The Wilderness at (773) 784-8065 or visit their Web site at www.vitw.org