Mr. Irrelevant

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ^ | Monday, 09 September 2002 | Brian S. Wise

[Fred Mertz]

If not, his [Ritter] true motivations should be known. There is no time for him to speak out like the present; dissent can be tolerated, pandering to the enemy cannot.

Ritter continues to puzzle me especially since he was a US Marine. I was hoping you'd come to a clear conclusion in your well written essay, but you left me hanging.

[Benrand]

I was sitting around thinking about this guy and I am considering the possibility that he is some sort of Trojan horse or some sort of foil planted in Iraq for the US to distance itself from and ultimately disprove.

I had ingested a couple of Ketel One's and cranberry at that time...but he is a wierd cat.

[Brian Allen]

<< ... Ritter ... outrage: ..... dissent can be tolerated, pandering to the enemy cannot. >>

What's it to be Mr Ritter?

Inside your payscale or outside? [The pale]

You have precisely fifteen minutes from ........ NOW!

Bump Ping Ping Ping Ping Ping Ping

[BrianS.Wise]

I would have come to a clear conclusion, provided I could have figured the guy out. I do plan on writing a follow-up column within the next two weeks, so please continue watching this web site or intellectualconservative.com for that piece.

Thanks for saying the column is well written; something in the back of my mind is telling me Ritter has some sort of inferiority complex, and that when he's ignored, he's forced to go to larger and larger extremes to get the attention he desires. I'll have to give it some thought and write more later.

[BrianS.Wise]

I gave the Trojan horse argument some thought, but it seems too sloppy, too disorganized, too emotional. I would believe Secretary of State Powell is a Trojan horse before Ritter.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Scott who???

[BrianS.Wise]

Right. Please tell me it's a series of inside jokes.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Scott Ritter is not irrelevant.

He is a traitor.

He deserves the full penalty of his crimes.

[BrianS.Wise]

So you're saying that someone cannot be, at the same time, irrelevant in the discussion he's including himself and a traitor? I ask you to reconsider ...

[big bad easter bunny]

My guess is blackmail.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Nah, I just meant that irrelevant is far too mild a term to apply to this man.

[BrianS.Wise]

I see. Well, sure, if everything we suspect is true, he's truly much worse; if not, he's just irrelevant. And easy to fool.

[BrianS.Wise]

But for what?

[shaggy eel]

dissent can be tolerated, pandering to the enemy cannot.

,,, as long as it's understood that tolerance doesn't mean acceptance.

[aculeus]

The WSJ calls him Baghdad Jane.

IMO Ritter is on Saddam's payroll. No one can "change their mind" so blatantly (and ineptly) without a real serious reason. Baksheesh is a well established Arab custom and hiding a million or two in Switzerland or elsewhere is very simple.

[expatpat]

I understand that Ritter received $400K from Iraq to make a movie about the weapons inspections.
This might explain it, if true.

[BrianS.Wise]

One can choose to accept or not accept anything; it's the same freedom that allows even a jackass like Scorr Ritter the right to say "No" and not be stoned to death. But acceptance is, as always, to the individual. I trust that is implied at all times in the minds of most conservatives.

[BrianS.Wise]

I've heard that all day, and am looking into it ...

[BrianS.Wise]

I was thinking of calling him Baghdad Scott, but if the Journal is going that way, I'm going to have to think of something else ...