This is from a review of Ritter's book "Endgame" by Daniel Pipes back in April, 1999:

"These preliminaries done, Ritter finally offers his own ideas for "solving the Iraq problem - once and for all," as his subtitle puts it. He sketches out two alternatives to the present policy of containment, one military and the other diplomatic. The military option revives the "Road to Baghdad" plan of 1991: send 250,000 American soldiers to the Persian Gulf, overthrow the Saddam regime, and rebuild Iraq in our image (such as was done in Germany or Japan). Ritter foresees no military difficulties ahead (indeed, he expects American soldiers will spend "more time processing prisoners than fighting the forces of Saddam").

Ritter then thinks out the diplomatic option, suggesting the irreducible elements of a U.S.-Iraqi deal, namely: Saddam recognizes Kuwait, forswears weapons of mass destruction, gives the Kurds autonomy, ends the state of war with Israel, and works things out with the Iraqi opposition forces. In return, the U.S. government ends economic sanctions, funds the reconstruction of Iraq, rebuilds the Iraqi military, and permits peaceful nuclear research.

I'm still with the author, but just barely. For reasons I cannot fathom, he has artificially set up two extreme options-overthrowing Saddam or becoming his patron-and ignored everything in between. Of course, he will dismiss the latter option as wildly wrongheaded . . . . But no, he doesn't. Instead, he despairs of the military option. He says it's not feasible because U.S. policy has so badly undermined the moral and legal cause against Iraq that the conflict has irretrievably eroded into a mere "squabble" between the two countries-and that's not enough to sustain the American populace in war. Even if it were enough, the "current U.S. policy of trying to overthrow Saddam is misguided," because Saddam is a symptom of underlying problems, not their cause. Most surprising of all is this utterly un-Marine-like sentence:

While doing business with Saddam is certainly not an attractive idea, when contrasted with the unspeakable horrors of war, or the mindless and morally corrupt policy of indefinite economic sanctions, it does present a lesser evil.
And so, with some regret but no doubts, Ritter concludes that a "bold diplomatic initiative, no matter how distasteful," is the only way to go.

These are, to put it mildly, astonishing statements. War with Saddam is worse than his continued rule? Economic sanctions are more horrible than his getting nukes?

Although this policy of capitulation would be regrettable coming from anyone, it is especially unfortunate coming from a person who reports from first-hand experience that "Iraq had lied [to UNSCOM] on every level." After experiencing the reality that "Iraq would go through the motions of disarmament, but not disarm," he now asks for more promises of WMD disarmament? Ritter wants the United States to train the Iraqi military in return for utterly meaningless assurances about recognizing Kuwait? Having learned that Iraq's "anti-terrorist school" was actually a school for terrorists, he wants the U.S. government now to pay for Iraqi economic development? In contrast to this, the much-reviled Clinton policy on Iraq looks positively brilliant.

In the end, Ritter cuts a highly erratic figure. He resigned from UNSCOM to protest its lack of effectiveness -then proceeded to do UNSCOM immeasurable harm with his revelations about CIA meddling. While vividly aware of the horrors Saddam has inflicted on the Iraqi people, from brutality to impoverishment, he nonetheless writes that they see the dictator "as a symbol of hope in their world of despair." He expresses revulsion at the Saddam regime but at one point (on learning about the CIA using UNSCOM to scout out information), he writes that he "began to understand the Iraqi point of view." He blasts the Clinton Administration for fecklessness, then proposes a far worse plan of appeasement.

When Scott Ritter addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 1998, right after his resignation, Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat of Delaware) rudely accused him of acting "slightly beyond your pay gradeand saying that Secretary of State Albright had more to consider than whether "old Scottyboy" did or did not get access to a weapons site." While the senator's rudeness remains inexcusable, the full expression of Ritter's thinking makes it sadly clear that his gibe was exactly on target. This man should be dismantling weapons, not opining on foreign policy."

After the Iraqi's read this book, and after the confrontation with Biden, they approached Ritter and supposedly asked how they could aid him in getting the sanctions lifted. He said "I could make a documentary." So an Iraqi born American Businessman gave him a $400,000 credit line to make the film. Biden's poorly chosen remarks probably deflated Ritter's ego to the point where something snapped and he said "I'll show them!"

So what happened between "endgame" which encouraged a "road to Baghdad" as one of two viable options and 2002 where such a war is "illegal and unconstitutional?"

Pretty simple answer:

$400,000 plus $$$$$$$???

Naturally, when you take money from a megalomaniac, torturing dictator, you have to look over your shoulder - they BOUGHT you and they want their money's worth. You start to back off and Saddam's henchmen will always be out there.

I actually feel sorry for Ritter - he made a deal with the devil...and like all deals with the devil... it's going to He--.

10 push ups? Never had dirt under my fingernails? You forgot my silver spoon...Ann Richards?

;-)

SDAI-Tech1

PS
I can tell you one guy who's really going to be happy and breathe a sigh of relief when the Iraq regime and Saddam are out of power - and that is Scott Ritter.