[carton253]

I don't find people attacking Ritter because he opposes an attack on Iraq. I think they are looking to answer this question: Why the 180 degree turnaround on his views on Iraq. In 1998, Iraq was a huge danger. In 2002, Iraq is a toothless tiger.

The three times I have seen Ritter and he is asked if he has any information (even the kind he can't talk about) that made him change his mind, he has stated NO. He hasn't talked to anyone in intelligence. He doesn't know what is going on in Iraq. But, in all three interviews, he hinges his opinion on the fact that he just knows. And then he seems to get incensed when the interviewer won't take that as a definitive answer. "How do you know." "I just do."

Well, Mr. Ritter is certainly making the rounds. He is popular with the news talk shows because he opposes the war and he is good for ratings. As long as that true, Mr. Ritter will be around for a long time.

Scott Ritter could be right. But, when he was kicked out in 1998, he said that Iraq still had chemical weapons and their nuclear facilities were still intact. Now, according to him, without information, he is saying the opposite. If I am to believe Mr. Ritter, then I need to know what he is basing his new found opinions on.

[palmer]

What he said in 1998 is that he was strongly against the Clinton decision to pull inspectors and start bombing. That's why he resigned from the commission. He has been consistently arguing for inspections back then, to Congress then and now, and to the Iraqi National Assembly.