I don't see the smoking gun, he was critical of the Iraq policy long before he was commisioned to produce a documentry, no one knows better than him that IT HAS NOT WORKED.
You have it backwards, sweetie, he was critical up UNTIL he made the documentary, now he's siding with Saddam.
First, in the Spring of 1998 shortly before being pulled out of Iraq, Scott Ritter still believed that Iraq either had WMD, or had the potential to create them with what they had left over from the Gulf War. Remember: Ritter claimed that US Weaponry failed to take out a significant enough portion of Hussein's military machine or capabilities to develop WMD during the Gulf War, in defiance of General Norman Schwartzkopf. Second, we have a clear indication from the Clinton Administration that they were willing to turn a blind eye to Ritter's claims in deference to the CIA, even though the CIA failed miserably to overthrow Hussein in what can only be called a complete, total, breakdown of Operational Intelligence in 1996. No doubt, the de-funding and de-stabilization of America's Intelligence Services during the 8 year reign of terror that was the Clinton Administration contributed to the breakdown of intelligence, the loss of CIA Agents, and the loss of an opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussein...
In 1998 during an interview on NBC TV, Scott Ritter called his former UNSCOM boss Richard Butler "an honest, objective, independent United Nations official." In 2002 during a Today Show interview, Scott Ritter said ""Richard Butler on the other hand is contradictable across the board"…"Kaidia Hamza and Richard Butler are a fraud and a liar respectively" September 16th, 2002) So what happened between 1998 and 2002, when Scott Ritter seemingly, magically changed his mind about Saddam Hussein and Iraq?
In 1999, Scott Ritter was approached by a Detroit area businessman with links to Saddam Hussein, to make a film about the "devasting effects" that U.N. Sanctions have had on Iraq. Ritter completed the film in July of 2000. Ritter was paid $400,000 to complete a one person, two camera, ninety-minute "documentary." Was Scott Ritter "bought and paid for" to change his story by Saddam Hussein? Scott Ritter claims he made no money on the documentary, but did he? On September 13th 2002, Scott Ritter was interviewed by CNN's Paula Zahn. In the interview, Zahn asked Ritter if he thought $400,000 was an "unusual amount" of money to film a documentary. Ritter's response was "no" he didn't think the amount was high. Ritter then went on to say that "other funding sources" had also been located to help pay the expenses of the trip. These sources include anti-war movements such as "not in our name" and the "Institute For Public Accuracy" a San Francisco based organization with ties to "The Workers Party of America" and the "Socialist Workers Party" and at the forefront of mobilizing and organizing Anti War protests. Ironic that the "Institute For Public Accuracy's" communications director is named Sam Husseini.