1. Ritter was a marine and served honorably.
Glad to hear it. That has zero relevance to the question at hand. Marines are not gods, nor are they omniscient, nor does the fact that one served in The Corps give everything they say the sheen of truth and honesty.
2. He was distinguished enough to get a high-profile role on the US Inspection Team.
Nice. Good for him. But what, exactly, does that have to do with the question at hand: Which Ritter to believe, Version 1998, or Version 2002?
3. He was a vocal critic during the inspection time when he felt that the inspections were not fully effective and that they were prevented from getting everything and full access.
Yes. This is what makes his current behavior so bizzare.
4. He later added that his conclusion was that the inspection team, led by Butler and with Butler's apparent approval, was in fact spying on Iraq, probably with the idea of a regime change, which was not something authorized by the Agreements, and certainly something that Hussein would not agree to.
Of course the U.N. inspectors were "spies" -- though overt ones. They were trying to determine whether or not Iraq was violating the terms of the cease fire. And let's note that the idea that Butler was a "spy" for the U.S. is backed up by nothing other than Ritter's opinion -- which happens to be Iraqi propaganda. Meanwhile, the existance of Iraq's ongoing WMD program is verified by several other U.N. inspectors and plenty of defected Iraqis. Based on that reality, I think we should look more suspiciously upon Ritter than on Butler.
5. If Saddam found out that this Inspection Team was spying (which he probably suspected would happen all the time) it would not be difficult to blame him for not cooperating with the Inspectors afterward.
Saddam didn't cooperate with inspectors from DAY ONE. And he used the "spy" excuse as propaganda -- just like the supposed "Baby Milk Factory" nonsense.
Aren't you just a little disturbed by the sight of a former Marine leading the press on Saddam-approved tours of innocent factories, as if that "proves" anything other than we are seeing what Saddam wants us to see? Aren't you a little disturbed by the realization that a former Marine takes the word of known murderers and liars over that of his own president? "Make the case, Mr. Bush"? The case has been made. But Ritter is either too brainwashed, paid-off, or delusional to see it.
And so, apparently, are you.
You included?
You fall for the "former marine" business, like that precludes him from being a nut. In fact, this is an important point to understand why he turned.
He was upset with the way inspections were going. I found him persuasive in this regard. But so what? That was 1998 - why did he do a 180 on whether Saddam had MWD or not? The two are not logically dependent on each other.
The whole "spying" thing is nonsense - pretextual agitprop created by Saddam's people to interfere with inspections. Of course they were trying to make a case against Saddam - isn't it obvious he was hiding something? And assume there was "spying." What would that fact have to do with the fact that Ritter did a 180 on the existence of MWD and Saddam's capacity (not to mention will) to increase that capacity? Answer = nothing.
All Saddam's smoke and mirrors. It's a joke anyway that a team of inspectors could find everything in a country the size of Texas.
Well up yours, too.
You must be a proctologist, 'cause you sound like an a$$hole.
My point being he was extremely critical of Sadaam Hussein while he was a U.N. inspector in Iraq. His position now is 180 degrees from before. Shouldn't we have the right to question the cause for his change of heart. I think so.
Uuh...dude that's what the Inspection Team was suppose to do IS spy on the Iraqis. Their job was to gather INFORMATION on Iraqi compliance whether it be overtly OR covertly.