Ritter not wrong
Matthew Pilfold

Re: Editor's Voice, October 14.

Ian's problem with Scott Ritter doesn't make sense. Ritter's talk was about the failure of his country to address any of the evidence he and his team had produced on the status of Iraq's weapons capability, and his resolve to see that the U.S. be brought to acknowledge the results of the UN resolutions they helped to create in the first place. Ritter's case is based on empirical evidence and as he said in his talk, he wanted this information to open up the debate around what is to be done to stop a U.S. war on Iraq. That's it.

Ian's critique attacks Scott Ritter, not his argument. Ritter's credibility matters only to the extent that his work as an inspector in Iraq can be confirmed. Whether or not Ritter is a Republican, or supports a country that once funded Hussein, or supports Israel, or belongs to the Marines, has absolutely no bearing on the strength of his argument. Who said anything about following "one-act pony show Republicans?" Building Ritter up to be some kind of all-purpose superhero based on the validity of one of his arguments is the mistake of the builder, not Ritter.

Furthermore, who is Ian referring to when he says "we" in the last paragraph? This over-generalisation is even more disturbing when placed next to his opening points about the dangers of "subversive lingo" and the "'Us vs. Them'" jargon used by senators and congressmen. Apparently, both 'sides' are having problems with the language of "war-mongers."

[ Back to issue 8 ] [ Send The Peak a comment on this story ]

The contents of The Peak are protected by copyright. For information on rights regarding specific articles (including reprinting, where applicable), please contact epeak@mail.peak.sfu.ca with the full URL of the content in question.