Why Is He Still Around?
Have we reached a point in society when a person can no longer be discredited? I raise this question because last night I caught a couple of minutes of a debate on CNN between Frank Gaffney and Scott Ritter on whether the war with Iraq was justified. It wasn't really much of a debate as Gaffney shredded Ritter's arguments which centered around the fact that so far no WMD have been discovered in Iraq.
Even if you don't agree with Gaffney's opinions (he is one of the nefarious neo-cons after all) you have to admit that most of his predictions about the war have been accurate.
Meanwhile just about everything that has come out of Scott Ritter's mouth in the last couple of years has been proved wrong. He claimed that the Iraqis had developed new tactics that would inflict heavy losses on coalition forces. Wrong. How about those massive civilian casualties? Didn't happen. Ritter went so far as to predict that the US would lose the war! Nice call Scott.
And even his prognostication about about easy scoring with teenage girls didn't quite pan out either.
But CNN still feels like they can trot this multiple time loser out to offer analysis and "insight" alongside a legitimate commentator like Gaffney. When is enough enough?