I don’t know if his work on “Three’s Company” makes him a hero per se, but I perhaps his new sitcom will. 
If you’ll forgive me Milo, it’s been a bangin’ weekend and I’m knackered so I hope you’ll accept, at least for now, this interesting contextual perspective as something akin to my own POV. Actually, I’ve posted it before but I do think the whole thing is worth a gander:
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/03-31-98.html
<quote>
The fact is, Abe, that no matter how many times you write that the UN inspectors have been responsible for finding and destroying Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, no such thing has happened. By arguing the inspections should go on until every rock has been overturned at least several times in a land 10,000 square miles larger than California, you are giving voice to Nixon’s strategy of starving every last Iraqi to death if that is what it takes to get Saddam. All UNSCOM evidence indicates that all weapons destroyed since the Gulf War were the result of the Iraqi government’s decision to comply with the UN resolutions as quickly as possible in hopes of having the sanctions lifted. The UNSCOM reports reveal that no weapon has been found and destroyed by the independent action of the inspectors. That is, no hidden weapons have been discovered in the seven years of inspection. Furthermore, no weapons have been destroyed since November 1991. NO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND OR DESTROYED SINCE NOVEMBER 1991!!! Do you hear me Abe? The secret policy of our government, backed by Nixon and his pals in the political establishment, has been to move the goalposts every time Baghdad gets within a yard of compliance. This is why Saddam made such a fuss with the American inspectors last fall, purposely manufacturing a crisis in order to bring world attention to the Holocaust-like situation underway in his country.
</quote>
Plus, we do know UNSCOM was also a US/Israeli spying job (even Butler admits that) and – for what it’s worth – that Ritter resigned because of US (Clinton/Allbright) manipulation of the mission. As I said in the previous post, it’s possible, IMHO, to see more black helicopters over more grassy knolls on the issue of Iraqi WOMD than anything since… tin foil was invented <twitch, twitch>
Elucidator – Don’t call me Neville, Lucy.
Do you have a cite for Butler admitting that the UNSCOM was a US/Israeli spying job? Because I can’t find one, and I just saw him interviewed about 12 hours ago when he denied it.
Multiple people in this thread have called Ritter a liar, but despite being asked by elucidator to put up or shut up, not a single person has demonstrated that he has, in fact, lied about anything at all, much less something material.
Minty at least addressed the question, although I note that since [s]he only posted past tense quotes and didn’t show how that they in any way contradict current statements, [s]he failed to make the point.
The rest of you have engaged in nothing other than baseless slander. And since that seems to be the republican’s method of choice for dealing with critics that have valid criticism, at this point, I’m leaning toward the belief that Ritter is a hero and Butler is the liar. (since it seems pretty clear that at least one of them is lying…)
Easy there, chucko.
Baseless slander?
All I’ve said is that his credibility is at question, because he’s done a 180 from his 1998 positions. And it was then that he was reasonably well-informed.
His change in position is a verifiable fact. Surprised you hadn’t noticed. Then again, not.
Shirley?
Lord, Tejota, do I have to spell out everything?
No. No, I don’t.
Instead, I’ll just invite you to read the links provided by the OP, then compare those statements to the ones I quoted. If that doesn’t demonstrate that he was lying then, lying now, or delusional, I’m afraid you’ll just have to remain unsatisfied.
Sorry, but yes, you must spell it out. I can hardly adress why you are mistaken if you won’t spell out what you think he said before that contradicts what he is saying now.
I think you are reading into past statments what is not there, in order to make them contradict current ones. If you give a specific example, then I will (I belive) be able to show why there is evidence of a lie, but I can hardly do that if you won’t substantiate your allegation.
If you wish to make an argument. then make it. Otherwise, admit to slander and I’ll drop the issue. Or, you can just ignore me.