Mr. Irrelevant

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ^ | Monday, 09 September 2002 | Brian S. Wise

[MeekOneGOP]

[freethinkingman]

Like Scotty boys boss from those days has said:

"He's either lying to us now or he was lying to us then".

[Stultis]

I don't get you. No one else has provided a satisfactory explanation of Ritter's jarringly abrupt change of tune, why the indignation at Brain's failure to do so? There is a mystery here. People are intrigued by mysteries and tend to talk about them, bouncing ideas around. You seem intent on shouting down anyone inclined to moot a theory on this question. Why is that?

[palmer]

I'm trying to help (really). Brian publishes his columns in advance here so I presume he is looking for feedback (both positive and negative).

I make no secret of my opposition to the attack on Iraq and the bashing of people like Ritter. Sure Ritter might well be a traitor or a loony (I have read nothing that suggests either). He might be on the CIA payroll pretending to oppose U.S. policy for all I know. I don't write columns and I don't have any facts to back up my speculations, but Brian does and Brian should.

Finally I think its ridiculous to attack people like Ritter simply because they oppose an attack on Iraq. If you or Brian want to attack, make your case and leave it at that.

[BrianS.Wise]

Now I'm beginning to understand the problem: the misconception of a column writer's responsibility. I'm here to help:

1) My columns aren't, in a matter of speaking, published on Free Republic in advance so opinion can be gathered. They are sent everywhere at about the same time, if anything the Free Republic postings come a little later than other general distribution. It's just that my editor at IntellectualConservative (and whatever affiliate sites) has a job, and doesn't get to things right away. I post the columns so they can be read; I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of them. I want to be read, not liked. I've got a deal through 2003 whether anyone likes them or not.

2) Opposing the Iraqi War isn't my problem, it's that your're not reading the column very carefully, choosing instead to concentrate on throw-away comments listed as responses to others. The columns are, in the strictest matter of speaking, the Gospel; I don't write with ulterior motives, they're for politicians and teenagers. What you read is what you get.

So keeping that in mind, I ask you concentrate more on the column and the thoughts advanced there. Had you, you'd have seen there is a certain latitude lent to Ritter; I don't know what his motivations are, and say so. (after the accusations I've heard others suggest, I note, "Maybe, maybe not.") But if now this comes to a point where I'm forced to break down every individual sentence so that what is obvious can be pointed out yet again, there's no point in writing to begin with.

3) I hardly consider the treatment of Ritter in the column "Mr. Irrelevant" to be an attack. I did say his behavior was, and is, nutty; because it is. But I don't write personal attacks, because I don't know him personally. Questions are asked and possible answers are given. The reader does the rest.

4) To this business of what I should be doing as a column writer, well, you're misunderstanding fully the nature of commentary. The column writer does not have the responsibility of, say, your average news reporter, because his job at its core is to commentate, i.e. give his opinion, not to break news.

That Ritter has changed sides is hardly an extraordinary news development; he's been heading that way since the "Axis of Evil" line in President Bush's State of the Union speech, in February. But there are too many "if's" and "Maybe, maybe not's" in this column for you to assume I am advancing bedrock truths.

[BrianS.Wise]

And it should be noted for history that I used it first ... and you were there! So back me up, if you have to ...

[BrianS.Wise]

It's hard to say; that's just it, no one knows, which makes the man more of a mystery. We keep hearing how Iraq forwarded him 400k for a movie he was making ... am looking into it ...

[BrianS.Wise]

And not for nothing, but if you go back through this rather large opinion section, you'll see I've defended Ritter on more than a few occasions.

[Benrand]

I wonder if Ritter's there to make Iraq look real bad as compared to just bad.

[BrianS.Wise]

Hey, what the hell does "bump" mean, anyway?

[MeekOneGOP]

"Bump?"

"Bump" = = = "bttt"........

Bump is used when someone wants to post a reply to a thread simply to "bump" it back to the top of the "Latest Posts" list so more visitors will see it. BTTT - "Back To The Top" is used interchangeably with "Bump".

Revised & Updated! -- THE LEXICON OF FREEREPUBLIC --
(FR dictionary, more help for newcomers!)

[Moosefart]

Scott has lost it, he's a ............

[carton253]

According to Ritter on Fox last night with O'Reilly, the film cost $400,000. Ritter paid himself 20%, then infused approximately $30,000 of that back into the film. The film was still over budget, so Ritter still owes on the film.

His reason for making the film was that there had to be one totally objective film on Iraq.

Still doesn't explain the flip-flop, but I think the media is giving this guy way too much gravitas. But, then again, they are desperate for ratings... and Ritter is probably good for that.

Plus, to Ritter, the publicity is good. If, he thinks (my opinion only) he can be the savior of the world, then I guess publicity is necessary.

[carton253]

Scott Ritter became a very hot property

Exactly! And it seems to me that he is loving every minute of it.

[esopman]

As a former Russian interpreter, I would recommend pursuing the role of his wife, Marina. She was an English interpreter from Georgia who met and married Scott, replacing wife #1. Given that most of her type are selected for competence and LOYALTY, and that Putin presently would love to continue Russian deals with Iraq, her Russian connection is of interest.

Further, a poster here ("Zviadist" - I assume the screen name was chosen based on some predilection for the former Georgian leader, Zviad Gamzakhurdia) claimed an acquaintance with Ritter and defended him vociferously.

Given the financial support we know of from Iraq, it seems Mr. Ritter is compromised emotionally and financially.

We must note, however, that in his address to the Iraqis, he did call in the assembly for the re-instituting of the inspection regime. That should be said in his defense (it went over like the proverbial screen door on a submarine).

This is a curious tale. I do not trust this former Marine at all. He should come clean...if he can do so and live to tell about it. Which is questionable.

[carton253]

I don't find people attacking Ritter because he opposes an attack on Iraq. I think they are looking to answer this question: Why the 180 degree turnaround on his views on Iraq. In 1998, Iraq was a huge danger. In 2002, Iraq is a toothless tiger.

The three times I have seen Ritter and he is asked if he has any information (even the kind he can't talk about) that made him change his mind, he has stated NO. He hasn't talked to anyone in intelligence. He doesn't know what is going on in Iraq. But, in all three interviews, he hinges his opinion on the fact that he just knows. And then he seems to get incensed when the interviewer won't take that as a definitive answer. "How do you know." "I just do."

Well, Mr. Ritter is certainly making the rounds. He is popular with the news talk shows because he opposes the war and he is good for ratings. As long as that true, Mr. Ritter will be around for a long time.

Scott Ritter could be right. But, when he was kicked out in 1998, he said that Iraq still had chemical weapons and their nuclear facilities were still intact. Now, according to him, without information, he is saying the opposite. If I am to believe Mr. Ritter, then I need to know what he is basing his new found opinions on.

[BrianS.Wise]

Well! Thanks so much for the explanation!

[BrianS.Wise]

I saw him on O'Reilly, just by chance, and forwarded the info on to a few curious readers. My follow up column, "Ritter, Redone" will be coming out next Tuesday.

[carton253]

I look forward to reading it.

[palmer]

What he said in 1998 is that he was strongly against the Clinton decision to pull inspectors and start bombing. That's why he resigned from the commission. He has been consistently arguing for inspections back then, to Congress then and now, and to the Iraqi National Assembly.