LindyBill,
I knew Ritter fairly well and closely for approximately 4 years in the late 90s here and abroad, primarily in a professional role. In addition to his frowning, focused objective to uncover Saddam's mechanism for hiding things from UNSCOM, I saw elements of a personality that would ultimately undermine everything positive he undertook. His particular brand of inspection was an iron fist and very complex requiring a vast apparatus of equipment and schemes. Ultimately, they achieved nothing of lasting value. And in the end, he blamed the US government and walked off the job, leaving a trail of muck with every newspaper reporter he found. And now he is implying, according to one news report, that the current administration wanted him silenced because his message was working against the administration's war plans.
When asked for my impression of Ritter after my first meeting with him and others, I said I seriously questioned his judgment. Any number of events after that day in the mid-90s supports that initial observation, at least in my eyes.
Obviously, Ritter has become a recurring foreign policy event of some sort. What does it take for that, is my question. I have sent notes to several news organizations in the last couple of years, after seeing Ritter pound the table and stare at the camera or interviewer with fiery eyes, suggesting they look more closely at the person and his authority to present a message of value. My question is what you seem to ask, why are we subjected to the message from and about Scott Ritter when there are more legitimate voices with the same message? And more and more Ritter rather than his message, to which I must say I subscribe, seems to be the focus of media attention.
At any rate, I just wanted to comment on your excellent note. |
