Sorry, but the analogy to Larry Flynt's actions just doesn't fly - in fact, what's going on here is exactly the opposite. What is different here is that this gives a hint of a possible explanation for the very public about face that Ritter has done with respect to Iraq, and therefore it just demands that investigative journalists follow the leads to see whether Saddam's hand might be behind it, or whether some Democrat operative might have had some unseen connection (a.k.a. blackmail for political purposes). Ritter has been a useful tool for the Democrats and for the 'hate America firsters'. In that respect, this is the exact opposite of what Flynt did - Flynt was indeed pursuing blackmail for political purposes, whereas the overwhelming interest in this case on FR goes towards ferreting out the story behind the story - namely has Ritter been blackmailed, and if so, by whom.
If a link can be made between this situation and his about-face, then make the link. Is there a link? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not defending Scott Ritter, who I think is a seditious POS. I'm arguing against the leap at trying to draw a conclusion about his motives...That's something the liberals do. Stick with the facts.