In thinking about Iraq, one thing that has nagged at me has been the reversal of position by Scott Ritter, the ‘belligerent inspector’ turned ‘antiwar advocate’. His open opposition to Administration policy was a significant issue for me, until I read Scott Ritter’s Iraq Complex in the NYT (link thanks to OxBlog).
It’s less of an issue for me now; take a look and see for yourself.
(Note that I’m still waffling heavily on the war itself)
The story you mentioned in this blog was simply an attack on Ritter sans fact. It is apparent from the story that the writer followed Ritter around looking for reasons to smear him.
Notice the “In public,…brusquely dismissive: ..In private, however, he is prone to answer … loosing a stream-of-conscious flow that churns and circles, carrying along glimmers of brilliance, incoherence and self-pity.” He doesnt back this up with fact or anything other than .. well nothing.
The major rags have become more and more well known for smear campaigns, devoid of fact, against anyone challenging the status quo. The San Jose Mercury was nearly put out of business by these same publications without one single fact. The mercury on the other hand openly made its facts and sources available. Please try not to fall for these propaganda campaigns. Quite frankly, you are more intelligent than this.