Teribus,

My post is just pointing out what an expert says. If Scott Ritter is "mudslinging" is up to a reader to decide. I'm just pointing out his article.

You may think that information three and a half years old is irrelevant. But if I went to Botswana today and observed its military, its economy, etc., and IF I WERE AN EXPERT (which Scott R. is and George W. and John K. are not) I think could make a pretty accurate determination about whether they would have nuclear weapons in 3 1/2 years. I would at least know what kinds of evidence we would expect to see, of goods moving in and out of the country, etc., to make a case for WMD plausible. My opinion would not be irrelevant.

You say his evidence was 3 1/2 years old, but you're assuming he had had no access to the UN's subsequent data. I don't imagine you're right about that, but I don't think either of us knows for sure.

You say that "there are a parade of witnesses appearing and testifying with regard to Iraq's WMD." But this is the whole point; they were wrong and Ritter was right! Now you say "Ritter's evidence was old, and his opinion was only his opinion." Okay, but his evidence turns out to have led to the proper conclusions, and his opinion was accurate, so maybe someone should have paid attention to him.

The issue is not only whether Kerry was justified in making the decisions he made, but whether he was justified in shutting out dissenting expert opinion from the meetings. There is one plausible reason to exclude such evidence: political pressure had been brought to bear on the committee, and its findings were therefore predetermined.

Are there other plausible explanations? Possibly. That's why, as Ritter says, "John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with."

Would you argue that Kerry should NOT explain this? If so, what possible justification could there be in asking a politician NOT to explain himself?