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.
To clairify. I do not neccesarily think there is blackmail link between Ritter's sex scandal and his out spoken opinions about Iraq, it is plausible that there is and plausible that there is not. My point was that the scandal is relevant to Mr Ritter's position on Iraq independent of such a link. The idea is he had a certain level of credibilty because of his experience, and now his opinion has less credibility because he has been shown to have at least one serious lapse in moral character. Moreover the scandal is of a public nature, and therefore within the scope of any serious discussion about Mr Ritter and his opinions on Iraq.
My impression was that you did not think that the moral lapses were relevant to his Iraq postitions (though I think we agree these positions are contemtable anyway).