Replies

Sorry, but I gotta join the chorus of disagreement. I think we need to distinquish between sex scandals that are fair game, and those that should be left private. We should apply the same to all the public figures without regard to whether they are liberal or conservative. In Ritter's case we are talking about criminal activity. If this is not a case of mistaken idenity, then I think it is relevant to Mr Ritter's risdule authority from his former postition of public trust. The public at large is the Board of Directors of such, and we have the responsibility to not tolerate those that abuse the noterity we grant them.

I'm not sure I understand your post. The accusations against Bill Clinton were not about a sex scandal in private, but about criminal behavior -- perjury and obstruction of justice to save his sorry behind and his pathetic presidency. Conservatives were right to go after Clinton, because he broke the law, and his offense was an impeachable one.

Scott Ritter's behavior is more than unsavory -- it was illegal. But, while there was a link between Clinton's bahavior and the justification to impeach him, is there a link between Ritter's behavior and his sell-out of the nation on Iraq? Maybe. Who knows? And who has a right to make the accusation? What I have read here isn't just speculation -- the "suggestion of blackmailability" as one posted -- but the suggestion that this is THE explanation for his going south on confronting Saddam. Maybe there is a link. Great. It will forever discredit him and silence him. But it's a leap between speculation and proof. That's my only point.