Replies

Slow down a minute:

1) I haven't ever said Scott Ritter was a traitor.

2) I haven't ever said Scott Ritter was on the Iraqi payroll.

3) I have said the inferiority complex thing was just a hunch; and I have said that's why I've never put it into a column.

4) I mentioned the hunch in the first place because one tends to think and act on his own, without seeking approval from other readers at Free Republic before discussing a hunch. No one but you took it seriously. But look: the more thoroughly he's dismissed, the louder he gets. Doesn't that suggest anything to you? I suppose you thought Napoleon didn't have a complex?

5) I believe my entire next column is going to be about people who cannot understand my columns as written, and then suggest I've said things I haven't.

6) I would certainly hope the United States used weapons inspections to spy on Iraq; everything that country does is suspect. A document of surrender at the end of a war isn't a list of suggestions, it's a declaration of dominance. What I can't figure out is why, once the inspectors were kicked out, they didn't return the next week with tanks to let themselves in.

7) The day I take column suggestions into consideration, I retire.

my entire next column is going to be about people who cannot understand my columns as written, and then suggest I've said things I haven't.

Then I'm the perfect person to read and comment on it!

Seriously though, your column didn't contain much other than innuendo that Ritter is a traitor. You brought it up as a strawman or whatever you want to call it, but the column's purpose was to bash Ritter as either a traitor or a loony (you wrote of no other possibilities). And your defense of your column is much better than your column IMO.