Originally posted by rich23
I read your links about Scott Ritter.
Good, then you are aware that he arranged for a cop posing as a young girl to meet him for sexual purposes, never stood in front of a jury for it, and
would have done time if he'd been caught again within six months.
There is no detail in the article that suggests Ritter was guilty,
Except of course for an undercover cop arranging to meet him at a Burger King in Colonie, NY, and then him showing up at said Burger King and being
There is no detail in the story or anywhere else that trumps this; the only conclusion warranted by the facts available is that his position saved
If he's really a paedophile, why is he still walking around? It's all too possible that he was smeared by a government agency for speaking
the truth about Iraq's lack of WMD.
If he'd switched sides during the Bush administration and was subsequently caught for the first time, that would make perfect sense.
He switched sides during the Clinton Administration and was caught for the first time before he made any significant trouble for Bush. What makes
sense in this case is that he has a problem, that it was used to blackmail him, he got caught anyway, and the fact that he was politically important
at the time saved him.
If Cheney's prepared to expose a CIA agent, why not fling some dirt at the monstrously inconvenient Ritter?
Changing the subject so soon? We're not talking about anything that Cheney leaked, or about Plame. We're talking about law enforcement officers
catching Ritter in the act.
Let me guess, Dick Cheney made Ritter arrange to meet an underage girl at Burger King for the purpose of masturbating in front of her, and then made
Ritter show up, made law enforcement officers not under the authority of the federal government catch him, and somehow conveniently forgot to railroad
Ritter in court?
It doesn't matter if there's nothing in it, because people such as yourself will be there to repeat the allegations.
Your obviously right because it worked so well. Nobody listens to Scott Ritter, do they? Hello- the man has been a major thorn in this administrations
side; if Cheney was after him they'd go hunting together and one of them wouldn't come back.
We're not talking about pedophilia in its own context as a disqualifier either. We're talking about pedophilia as the only rational explanation for
how Ritter was brought to completely reverse his position and start taking Saddam's blood money.
Which, incidentally, have no bearing on his judgment about the Iraqi UTTER LACK of WMDs.
See above, or do I have to draw it in crayon for you?
Likewise, when you actually read the article about the film, first, less than half a million dollars is not a huge budget for a movie. Second,
and more to the point, nothing in the article you posted indicates that Ritter knew the money came from oil allocations.
Let me get this straight: an Iraqi national gave him 400,000 to make a film that says good things about Iraq, and that Iraqi National had the clout
necessary to get him back into Iraq (which had kicked him out for spying), and yet he didn't smell a rat? That was CYA all the way; an upright
person, if they had to explictly ask if the money had come from Saddam, wouldn't take the money. He obviously had reason to be suspicious, and all he
did was go through the motions of covering his own butt, rather than walk away and seek other funding. As you said, 400,000 isn't even really that
much money for a movie budget, right?
Not such a sharp axe after all - blunt enough to bounce off the log and smack you in the shin
Well, sounds like in your case, believing is not seeing, if you get my meaning. A toast to blind faith!