Mr. Irrelevant

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

[shaggy eel]

I trust that is implied at all times in the minds of most conservatives.

,,, it was within that context that I made my statement.

[palmer]

So the choices are: he's a traitor on Saddam's payroll or he has an inferiority complex and a desire for the spotlight. Do you have evidence for either of those theories?

[Dog Gone]

My opinion is that he was bought all along. His inspections found what could not be hidden in time.

Ritter was a weasel all along, and we simply weren't interested in looking hard enough earlier.

[Dog Gone]

My opinion is that he was bought all along. His inspections found what could not be hidden in time.

Ritter was a weasel all along, and we simply weren't interested in looking hard enough earlier.

[Benrand]

I see the big picture of Ritter being involved this way as calculated. But he does get pretty fired up when he's defending his position, as if he doesn't like doing it.

This whole episode is fascinating to me.

[BrianS.Wise]

To the first point, I haven't ever suggested Ritter is on the Hussein's payroll. I said he used to be on the Fox News Channel's payroll, but was dismissed. The paragraph in question was:

"In answering the first question, well, your average American just doesn’t get an audience with the Iraqi National Assembly, which only shines a brighter light as to why Ritter was there and who footed the bill. On this, every possible accusation has been made, starting with “Ritter is on the Iraqi payroll and should be investigated for income tax evasion” and often ending with “Ritter is a traitor and should be investigated for espionage.” Maybe, maybe not; but by this point, even Ritter should understand how odd this all looks. Those who undergo philosophical shifts tend to do so gradually; for one example, your author didn’t flip from liberalism to Republicanism in one grand movement, rather the change came gradually."

What is suggested here is, these are some of the things people have said. Go down the list of replies to this column, you will see the same two accusations, unsolicited.

To the second point, the inferiority complex is just a suspicion of mine, and nothing that can be confirmed. That's why I haven't written it in a column; the understanding being the officially produced column work should be taken a little more seriously than something I fire off to someone on Free Republic.

[BrianS.Wise]

And difficult to understand, yes. Something's telling me one Ritter follow up column won't be enough.

[Fred Mertz]

I just learned the other night that Ritter is married to a Russian woman.

Also, I recently read an article on Ritter (on FR) that was written in Nov 2001 (I think) that theorized that Ritter is an agent of the CIA; that made as much sense as anything else I've been reading.

[BrianS.Wise]

I've been hearing the married-to-a-Russian-woman thing all day today, too, but look: having sex with a Russian no more makes you a Iraqi poster boy than having sex with a liberal makes you a Clintonite.

Re: Ritter in the CIA. Next thing you know, people are going to have him in a book depository window overlooking Daley Plaza.

[red-dawg]

After watching his sudden transformation from his former self, I assumed at first he was just ANGRY.
Scott seemed to assume an "I told you so" type of attitude and then CLICK!!
Like a lightswitch he started to defend Iraq. It now appears that he has the coordinates to Sen. Biden's house and is giving them to Saddam.

[BrianS.Wise]

Had he called me first, I could have given him a few other sets of coordinates.

[Fred Mertz]

My final comment: I would look at who is pulling Ritter's strings rather than his personal motivations.

Thanks again for your well written piece.

[palmer]

If the inferiority complex is your unconfirmed hunch then why did you mention it at all? And apparantly you have no evidence that he is a traitor except for his trip to Iraq that the Iraqi government paid for. But I think there's more and you need to do more homework.

His speech there as excerpted on various websites was primarily to urge the assembly to reallow weapons inspections. But he has also admitted that the U.S. used inspections to spy on Iraq. In admitting that, did he hand over secret information to a foreign power? Maybe you should investigate that for your next column.

[BrianS.Wise]

Slow down a minute:

1) I haven't ever said Scott Ritter was a traitor.

2) I haven't ever said Scott Ritter was on the Iraqi payroll.

3) I have said the inferiority complex thing was just a hunch; and I have said that's why I've never put it into a column.

4) I mentioned the hunch in the first place because one tends to think and act on his own, without seeking approval from other readers at Free Republic before discussing a hunch. No one but you took it seriously. But look: the more thoroughly he's dismissed, the louder he gets. Doesn't that suggest anything to you? I suppose you thought Napoleon didn't have a complex?

5) I believe my entire next column is going to be about people who cannot understand my columns as written, and then suggest I've said things I haven't.

6) I would certainly hope the United States used weapons inspections to spy on Iraq; everything that country does is suspect. A document of surrender at the end of a war isn't a list of suggestions, it's a declaration of dominance. What I can't figure out is why, once the inspectors were kicked out, they didn't return the next week with tanks to let themselves in.

7) The day I take column suggestions into consideration, I retire.

[BrianS.Wise]

And now we'll have to carry this to another time, I've got to go ...

[palmer]

my entire next column is going to be about people who cannot understand my columns as written, and then suggest I've said things I haven't.

Then I'm the perfect person to read and comment on it!

Seriously though, your column didn't contain much other than innuendo that Ritter is a traitor. You brought it up as a strawman or whatever you want to call it, but the column's purpose was to bash Ritter as either a traitor or a loony (you wrote of no other possibilities). And your defense of your column is much better than your column IMO.

[doug from upland]

This is great. "Brockian" is now an adjective.

[Wil H]

The one essential element missing from this otherwise interesting analysis is that Scott Ritter, a low paid former civil servant, is $400,000 better off than he was four years ago.

Think that might have anything to do with it?

[big bad easter bunny]

If we knew that they would not be able to blackmail him.

[The Great Satan]

Soldiers like Scott Ritter and Timothy McVeigh are nothing new in history. The preening, self-regarding hero comes home and finds himself a nobody, and turns on his old comrades in arms. That's the story of Ajax. It's as old as Homer.