Replies

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.

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.

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.