SMEARING SCOTT RITTER

The latest casualty is Scott Ritter, the U.N. arms inspector who resigned on August 26, charging that the administration had repeatedly blocked his efforts to do his job in Iraq. The administration response was swift: Within hours, CBS was reporting that Ritter was under investigation by the FBI for sharing information with Israel. The Washington Post carried the same news — in two separate articles — the next day.

The leak was a reminder that the Clintonites will go after just about anyone who has become inconvenient to them. Only seven months ago, the administration almost went to war with Iraq because Ritter had been prevented from searching for weapons of mass destruction. But as soon as he criticized Clinton policy, he found his integrity — and his patriotism — under attack. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright even hissed in a September 1 interview on CNN that Ritter “doesn’t have a clue about what our overall policy has been.”

Here’s what happened: In January, Ritter was told by colleagues that the FBI, at the behest of the CIA, had launched an investigation into whether he had improperly shared information with other governments. The investigation was — and is — widely believed to be nothing more than a bureaucratic squabble involving turf-conscious CIA men. This conclusion was supported by the administration’s refusal to take action against Ritter, even though he was operating in a highly sensitive environment.

The FBI never contacted Ritter about the allegations. In fact, it still hasn’t. Indeed, the bureau has never even confirmed the existence of the investigation. Seeking some answers, Ritter had his boss, Richard Butler (chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq), complain to national-security adviser Sandy Berger and U.N. ambassador Bill Richardson about what was happening. Both men begged off, pleading that they were powerless to act over a law-enforcement matter.

Ritter got some good news a couple of months ago when he was shown a letter from the CIA general counsel’s office to the Justice Department. The letter explained that any information Ritter had shared with other governments was authorized. (Holding no security clearance, Ritter has no access to classified information.) Later, Ritter was informed by intelligence officials who had spoken with the FBI that the inquiry was closed, with no wrongdoing uncovered.

But as we now know, this assessment was premature. One top intelligence source, who has experience in nuclear inspections, says that he has always found an investigation of Ritter laughable. The source further says that he was flabbergasted when the fact of the investigation appeared in media reports. There is no doubt, he says, that this was Ritter’s payback for going public with complaints about the Clinton administration.

So who is responsible for the leak? The intelligence community is awash in theories, with senior aides to Albright and Richardson tagged as the likeliest suspects. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned, however, that a Pentagon official was the source for at least one reporter.

That the Defense Department would be unleashed to besmirch Ritter’s reputation is hardly surprising. Top Pentagon officials acknowledged earlier this year that they had leaked damaging information from Linda Tripp’s security file. In all likelihood, the culprit in the Ritter case will never be found, much less punished — even as no one has been disciplined in the Tripp matter — but the illegal disclosure has aroused the anger of at least two senators, Richard Shelby and Bob Kerrey, the leading Republican and Democrat on the intelligence committee. Together, they sent a letter to Berger and other cabinet officials on September 4 demanding an investigation.

Regardless of the outcome, the administration’s short-term objective has been achieved: Ritter’s credibility is in dispute. Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Carter national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wondered mischievously whether Ritter “has his own agenda in this matter.” The charges against Ritter are almost certainly baseless, and he has enough stature to win his reputation back. Unfortunately, not every victim of the Clinton smear team is so lucky.

Matthew Rees is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD.