Ok, truer_sound, let me see if I can simplify it for you.

1. Scott Ritter resigns his position in 1998 with the U. N. Special Commission, because he doesn't feel the U. N. is being TOUGH enough on Saddam, who was preventing the team Scott was on to do the job they were hired to do. That job, was to see that Iraq was 100% disarmed. Not 20%, 50% or 80% ...100%. That was the agreement Iraq made with the U. N. in exchange for the U. N. not continuing Desert Storm.

2. Ritter is formally chastised by his boss, with the approval of the Secretary General of the U. N. for releasing classified information he gathered while on the job for the U. N.

3. Scott Ritter writes a book the subject of which is how the Iraqi situation should be resolved.

4. The purpose for a writing a book is to sell them and make money.

5. Scott Ritter, in 2002 states that Iraq is not a threat, has no weapons of mass destruction, etc.

6. Since there have been no inspections, how does he know that?

You see no discrepency in his positions?

Still too complicated to understand? :>)

DougR