[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
I'm not sure Scott Ritter's position has changed at all. I've read about him in testimony and interviews from 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

His problem with the Clinton administration was that he felt the U.S. and Britain were interfering with his efforts to inspect for that 'last 5%' or WMD programs/capabilities/facilities to reach a certainty that there were none -- which in turn would allow lifting of sanctions that were 'costing the lives of 6,000 Iraqi children a month.' These deaths seemed to be pissing him off.

His problem with the Bush administration was/is the same: interference with inspections and sabre rattling, which later became a war predicated on wrong assumptions that he felt could have been disproven.

I'm not finding an inconsistency in his positions excepting that he appears to have come to believe that the rumors of WMD materials -- and even programs -- were untrue. It would be disingenuous for him to think otherwise, now that we've been there a year, and all the 'exact locations of WMD programs' that Powelll touted have been sifted through.

He quit in 1998 during the the Clinton administration after claiming that Iraq had not disarmed and that he felt that Clinton was not nearly hard enough on Iraq. After 4 years of not going to Iraq or receiving any type of intelligence...suddeny he started claiming Iraq was disarmed. Of course his current liberally funded lecture circuit story is otherwise. I guess it is good to be a liberal and when things don't work out as you planned...all you have to do is change your story and all your supporters ignore your previous mistatements..Kerry has that flip-flop down to an art also.