[My2Cents]

Admittedly, Scott Ritter's behavior exceeds simple womanizing on the Creep-O Scale, but again, how does his behavior have anything to do with his radical change in his position on Iraq? As I posted earlier, Miss Marple wrote that the facts of his behavior suggest that Ritter is "blackmailable." That's a fair accusation, which sheds doubt on his highly publicized change of attitude on Saddam. But to offer a reasonable suggestion of his "blackmailableness" is a far cry from taking this story as proof-positive that he's being blackmailed, and THE explanation for his shift in opinion.

I think a better explanation is that this news shows that Scott Ritter is a moral reprobate, and as a moral reprobate, he's lost his ability to distinguish good from evil, and, hence, his inability to see the truth about Saddam and the necessity to go up against him. That, to me, is where any linkage exists, but no one has said that on this thread.

[alnick]

I think that almost everyone who responded to you on this thread has suggested that the significance of the story is that Ritter is blackmailable, though only one actually used that word. I think that that is what almost everyone has been trying to say about this situation.

[Miss Marple]

This is my theory. Feel free to shoot it down, but it explains to me a lot of what has happened.

Ritter came to the attention of the Clinton Administration when he testified before Biden's committee. Remember, Biden was condescending and contemptuous to Ritter. Ritter made a few appearances pushing the "Saddam is dangerous" line, and then retired into obscurity.

However, he had come under the scrutiny of Mt. Doom, the Clintons. No doubt checking with their sources (remember at this time they still were in power) they discovered that Ritter was interested in underage girls. No doubt the Iraqis had photos, which they were happy to supply for a big price.

Ritter, the very public anti-Iraq critique, suddenly changes his mind. He appears on a bazillion talk shows spouting how President Bush should be impeached, that Cheney wants nothing but a war, that it's all for oil, approval ratings, or revenge for the attempt on Dad Bush's life.

Meanwhile, any evidence on Ritter has been suppressed. He doesn't know this, of course, but that is what is useful...he never knows when something may comeout. So Ritter goes on his merry way, trashing all things Bush at the behest of whoever has the dirt on him.

Whoever had the story quashed did so to keep him a viable critic of the administration's policy. Only two places would have an interest in Ritter performing that function: Baghdad and Chappaqua.