Mr. Irrelevant

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

[carton253]

That may be... but that is not my complaint. In testimony and articles that he has written, he said that 1) Iraq was not disarmed. 2) Iraq still had the infrastructure to make nuclear weapons. 3) Iraq still had chemical weapons. 4) Iraq duped the inspectors.

For about the past 6 months, he has stated 1) Iraq is disarmed because the inspectors disarmed them. 2) Iraq can never make a nuclear weapon. 3) Iraq doesn't have any chemical weapons because the UN inspectors destroy them. 4) Iraq played fair with the inspectors.

He needs to explain why he has had a sudden change of heart. So far, from his own mouth, he has said that he doesn't know what has been happening in Iraq during the past 4 years.

The fact that he is against the war does not bother me. He is allowed to have that opinion. He is allowed to go on talk shows and say that. But, he needs to explain why he has changed his mind... based on (these are his words to both David Asman and Bill O'Reilly) more than I just know.

That's my complaint with Scott Ritter.

[palmer]

In 98 he said Iraq was disarmed but had hidden its materials and could start making weapons again. Other than his flipflopping on the "played fair" issue, I don't agree with your argument.

[palmer]

Here's the newshour piece where he is careful to say they don't have weapons but without inspections they could easily reassemble them.

[hosepipe]

Well written Brian....
Have you considered this article by Pat Buchannon.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/748951/posts

[hosepipe]

Bump means BUMP to the top OF THE lastest posts list....
bah dah ping

[carton253]

Well... that's fine!

[palmer]

okay then!

[MrB]

I watched the O'Reilly interview.
O'Reilly was backing him into a corner with questions, and Ritter looked highly uncomfortable.
He had the look of a person who knew he was lying and didn't believe what he was saying but at the same time knew that the consequences of not keeping up the lie were terrible.

[carton253]

Okay.... have a great day!

[N. Theknow]

Ritter is being blackmailed. He secretly had an operation that rendered him capable of dating Janet Reno and Hillary.

[MEGoody]

"If not, his [Ritter] true motivations should be known."

Follow the money.

[MeekOneGOP]

You're welcomed !

[BrianS.Wise]

This explains so much ...

[daniel boob]

To the second question, one assumes Ritter’s new basis of knowledge comes either from the Iraqis themselves, or is simply a visceral, contrary reaction to a power he doesn’t trust (that being the United States government).

Man, this is where I'm lost. This morning, I was wondering how much closer to a line of treason he was willing to step. Do you have any idea? I mean, the guy talks to the Daquiri's! It seems he isn't going to backdown from continuing to bitch about the US approach of eradicating Saddam.

Well written essay. Keep it up.

[BrianS.Wise]

Ritter did look very, very uncomfortable, I agree. But O'Reilly is a bulldog; he knew what he was getting into.

[BrianS.Wise]

Again, it's not the lack of support that bothers me, it's that it seems so groundless, the way he lays it out. Opposition is fine, but he shouldn't be surprised so many people are concerned about his line of reasoning.

[BrianS.Wise]

Hey you guys -

I was stunned to log on this afternoon and see this posting was still blowing up. You guys are the best; what a great series of exchanges. I would like to encourage all of you to join my mailing list, as I'd very much like to keep all of you as steady readers. This especially includes palmer, who is my new best friend. (tgolist@attbi.com)

[Fred Mertz]

Please add me to your ping list for your next opinion piece; that's what you did in #77.

[BrianS.Wise]

I don't know what a ping list is; but a new column has been posted, "The State That Couldn't Vote Straight"