[carton253]

That may be... but that is not my complaint. In testimony and articles that he has written, he said that 1) Iraq was not disarmed. 2) Iraq still had the infrastructure to make nuclear weapons. 3) Iraq still had chemical weapons. 4) Iraq duped the inspectors.

For about the past 6 months, he has stated 1) Iraq is disarmed because the inspectors disarmed them. 2) Iraq can never make a nuclear weapon. 3) Iraq doesn't have any chemical weapons because the UN inspectors destroy them. 4) Iraq played fair with the inspectors.

He needs to explain why he has had a sudden change of heart. So far, from his own mouth, he has said that he doesn't know what has been happening in Iraq during the past 4 years.

The fact that he is against the war does not bother me. He is allowed to have that opinion. He is allowed to go on talk shows and say that. But, he needs to explain why he has changed his mind... based on (these are his words to both David Asman and Bill O'Reilly) more than I just know.

That's my complaint with Scott Ritter.

[palmer]

In 98 he said Iraq was disarmed but had hidden its materials and could start making weapons again. Other than his flipflopping on the "played fair" issue, I don't agree with your argument.