Very nice work Ms. Julia Gorin. Hopefully, we'll find someone or something; which helps explain what went so wrong between October 1997 and the time of Ritter's resignation. Perhaps Ritter, like Clinton, was more interested in his own personal sexual gratification; than the world security matters they were entrusted with.
Another showdown with Saddam Hussein is in the works. Ritter seems deeply troubled that even one US soldier might shed blood over Saddam’s Iraq. Perhaps a forbidden sexual encounter, followed by blackmail, predisposed the breakdown of UNSCOM?
If you find useful reference material, to backup this assertion, please add it on the Was Scott Ritter Compromised By The Amn Al-Khass! thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829655/posts
And this, in itself, has precisely what relevance? The entire article is an example of an ancient logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (One event follows another, therefore one event has been caused by another.)
Fortunately, not everyone is fooled.
That is, did Ritter consciously decide to adopt an outspoken pro-Saddam viewpoint in anticipation of his predilections becoming public, knowing that such exposure would then damage the pro-dictator crowd?
If so, that is in some sense a noble decision. It doesn't mitigate his crimes, by any means, but he definitely fell on his sword.
I think perhaps it's more likely that the Administration discovered the arrest and forced Ritter to go to the "other side" with the intention of releasing the damning information at a critical stage in the debate. It has definitely been made public at a crucial time.