From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 00:29:28 MDT
At 07:21 PM 9/11/02 -0600, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>Earlier in this thread, I stated that it was my opinion that Scott Ritter was
>a turncoat who had sold out to the Iraqis ...
>I now have proof. ...
>Ritter currently in Bagdad claiming to all and sundry that he and
>the US knows that Iraq has no WMD, but it has been documented that he has
>received $400,000 from a Detroit based Islamic anti-American group
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Ritter (who was and is there, and
in a primo position to know the facts, unlike Mike or me) is correct?
Suppose Iraq actually *does* have bugger-all WMD, and bugger-all facilities
for making any. (Even though this was not always the case, and they are the
spawn of Stan, sorry, Satan, and so on.) Would you expect a man of
conscience to shut up about this uncomfortable fact? If he uses the
(perhaps tainted) dough to make a documentary about the truth as he
believes it to be, rather than by pocketing his traitor's gold (traitor?
there's no declared enemy in the story so far, I think) and living the wild
life in the Bahamas, isn't the balance of probabilities in his favor rather
than against it?
I know, hard even to conceive of such a thing. Still.
Damien Broderick
[no strong feeling either way]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:00 MST