Althouse: Scott Ritter.

January 14, 2010

Scott Ritter.

Yikes.

88 comments:

vbspurs said...: Unfortunate juxtapositioning on that site.

A former chief United Nations weapons inspector is accused of contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera.

---> RELATED PHOTO GALLERIES.; 1/14/10, 11:11 AM
Pastafarian said...: I believe that this is the 2nd or 3rd time he's been caught doing something like this. Eventually they'll have to lock this guy away for a very long time, or he's going to molest a child (if he hasn't already).; 1/14/10, 11:13 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: So.. it turns out Scott Ritter was carrying and hiding a WMD ;); 1/14/10, 11:14 AM
john said...: This was ostensibly the THIRD time he has been caught with his pecker in his hand.

wow.

Makes me wonder about his years in Iraq. Children in third world countries can be easy pickings for pedophiles. I guess I should be happy he wasn't a weapons inspector in Thailand.; 1/14/10, 11:15 AM
Kev said...: (the other kev)

Damn, won't Karl Rove leave that guy alone?; 1/14/10, 11:17 AM
michaele said...: Any news story like this one leaves me saddened, disturbed, depressed, confused, angry....some people must live with strange and terrible demons that they would even begin to comtemplate such ugly behavior.; 1/14/10, 11:22 AM
J Scott said...: Makes you wonder what kind of leverage someone would have over him. And what you could get him to say or do. Spycraft 101; 1/14/10, 11:23 AM
Joe said...: Not to beat this dead horse, but does the M in WMD stand for Mass or Minimum.

(pun poor but intended.); 1/14/10, 11:23 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Earlier this week, my daughter came home with the news that one of her former teachers had been arrested for sexually assaulting a 12 year-old.

How do these people convince themselves that they won't get caught?; 1/14/10, 11:29 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Pasta,

Yep - old news - and let this be a lesson to the rest of you:

Turning on George W. Bush is probably proof there's something wrong with you.

LOL!; 1/14/10, 11:32 AM
Kirk Parker said...: "Ah, the Internet! Where men are men, women are men, and young girls are FBI agents..."; 1/14/10, 11:32 AM
knox said...: That was one weird dude, so I'm not surprised. I remember seeing him on Frontline years ago, and his whole demeanor was really... well, odd in a bad way is the only way I can think to put it.

Women's intuition, if you will. (sorry rh!); 1/14/10, 11:35 AM
vbspurs said...: How do these people convince themselves that they won't get caught?

I asked the same thing when I heard about Bernie Madoff.

They're sick, Peter.; 1/14/10, 11:37 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Keeping in the best traditions of the United Nations.; 1/14/10, 11:41 AM
Matt Eckert said...: I always thought this guy was a jerk-off.; 1/14/10, 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: "How do these people convince themselves that they won't get caught? ... I asked the same thing when I heard about Bernie Madoff."

Madoff convinced himself he could get away with it by - you know - actually getting away with it for almost 30 years.

Outsiders went to the SEC multiple times with convincing evidence that he was running a Ponzi scheme.

And yet the SEC allegedly investigated him multiple times, always giving him a clean bill of health. Things that make you go ... hmmmmmmm.

How could he not conclude he would not get away with it? He left nothing to chance, folks.

The only reason Bernie Madoff is in jail today is that his investors were forced by a once-in-a-lifetime economic event to ask for redemptions (which of course, he couldn't provide and so the bubble burst).

Bernie Madoff had completely infiltrated our government. His friends and protectors in the SEC were actively preventing his Ponzi scheme from ever facing any serious threat.

Billions was changing hands.; 1/14/10, 11:46 AM
David said...: "Makes me wonder about his years in Iraq."

Me too.; 1/14/10, 11:46 AM
traditionalguy said...: That is so dumb of Ritter in this day and age when police are known to be running internet traps on child predators. His intelligence is seriously in question. He was OK as a Saddam protector once at the UN, but that required no intelligence except to put out the story they wanted told.; 1/14/10, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: "How do these people convince themselves that they won't get caught?"

It's not about being caught ... it's about nothing happening even if they get caught.

Ritter has been arrested three previous times (that we know of) for trying to lure girls. We may not know of all the other times he's been caught, since our courts have frequently acted to prevent outsiders from even knowing about Scott Ritter's arrests (his 2001 arrest, for example, was sealed from public inspection by a judge protecting Ritter).

This guy has cover, folks. He's convinced himself he won't get caught by not getting caught. And even when caught getting off "Scott" free.

Doesn't matter if he's caught.

You or I did this - we'd be getting new assholes fitted out for us in the state penitentiary inside of a week.

Scott Ritter is untouchable.; 1/14/10, 11:53 AM
Salamandyr said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/14/10, 11:55 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: On the other hand he did oppose the Iraq war and hated Bush so we should probably leave him alone.; 1/14/10, 11:58 AM
Ron said...: If he had spent as much time looking for WMD as he did in chat rooms, maybe the whole Iraq war wouldn't have happened!!!

...and if you believe that, you're more gullible than he was...

I wonder if Onan was as tragic as the Greeks...; 1/14/10, 12:00 PM
Ron said...: Maybe he was looking to meet up at a hotel with a radiation symbol shaped pool in the Poconos...they have those there, you know.; 1/14/10, 12:04 PM
Methadras said...: I wonder why he didn't ask for UN Peacekeeping duties in the Congo?; 1/14/10, 12:08 PM
Ron said...: You or I did this - we'd be getting new assholes fitted out for us in the state penitentiary inside of a week.

With enough dough you can get a bespoke asshole...I'm wearing my bullfighter model as we blog, right now.; 1/14/10, 12:09 PM
SteveR said...: Yeah let him write a new Bush bashing book and Keith Olbermann will treat him like the Pope. Where you stand depends on where you sit.; 1/14/10, 12:10 PM
chickelit said...: Wer wichste so spät durch Nacht so blind?
Es ist der Ritter mit einem Kind.
Er hat den Knoben wohl in dem Arm,
Er faßt ihn sicher, er hält ihn warm.; 1/14/10, 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: "On the other hand he did oppose the Iraq war and hated Bush so we should probably leave him alone."

I'm fairly certain that Barack Obama will be out shortly to remind us that "Scott Ritter has always been on the right side of history."; 1/14/10, 12:21 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: See what happens when you convert to Liberalism?; 1/14/10, 12:23 PM
John Stodder said...: This might explain Ritter's mysterious transformation from WMD alarmist to WMD denier. Evidently, he would have been an easy target for blackmail, and perhaps someone did just that.; 1/14/10, 12:27 PM
vbspurs said...: er hält ihn warm.

In German slang, "warm" is a way of saying you're gay.

Just an FYI for Titus, the Schwul.; 1/14/10, 12:34 PM
Freder Frederson said...: This might explain Ritter's mysterious transformation from WMD alarmist to WMD denier. Evidently, he would have been an easy target for blackmail, and perhaps someone did just that.

Except that the facts, as finally admitted by the Bush administration itself, validate Ritter's story, not the "intelligence" on which we went to war with Iraq in 2003.

There were no WMDs. They were destroyed in the mid-1990's. If you don't like that reality, don't complain to me, take it up with President Bush--that is what his commission concluded.; 1/14/10, 12:36 PM
knox said...: This might explain Ritter's mysterious transformation from WMD alarmist to WMD denier. Evidently, he would have been an easy target for blackmail, and perhaps someone did just that.

Brilliant! (I don't mean that sarcastically!); 1/14/10, 12:43 PM
knox said...: There were no WMDs. They were destroyed in the mid-1990's. If you don't like that reality, don't complain to me, take it up with President Bush--that is what his commission concluded.

A cogent and relevant post... 5 or 6 years ago.; 1/14/10, 12:45 PM
Cedarford said...: This is apparantly his 3rd strike as a pederast (not a child molester).
Time for his 1st offense record to be sought by prosecutors in this 3rd instance, unsealed, and used as documentation along with his complete Internet files that he is a serious, serial pederast.

And at a minimum, registered as a lifetime sex offender with court-ordered restrictions on his internet use, travel abroad, circumstances where he can meet teen girls under the age of consent.

Who knows, some teen floozie might even come out of the woodwork and tell that 'ol Scott "scored".
And while statutory rape laws can be seriously abused by prosecutors (18 year old "rapes" his eager 16-year old girlfriend, rationalizing that if a 45-year old female fucks 3 junior high students it was actually a favor to them...)

Well, in this sort of case, statutory rape laws are a good idea. Ritter is a habitual predator.; 1/14/10, 12:45 PM
former law student said...: The obvious question is "Is bad judgment universal?" If a middle-aged man can delude himself into thinking that an actual 15 year old girl wants to see him pull his pud over the Internet, much less that a middle-aged man can think that it is good and right to display himself masturbating in front of a 15 year old girl, you have to wonder what other ridiculous beliefs he has.

But I found out a couple years ago that quite ordinary guys can fall subject to this delusion. Nostalgic about my first job out of college, I googled the names of some of my former co-workers. Some had passed away, but the fellow at the next desk -- a family man and father of four -- had retired to Georgia, where, the local paper reported, at the age of 78 he had been arrested for soliciting sex from a 14 year old girl via "her" MySpace page. He died last summer, perhaps partly from shame.; 1/14/10, 12:47 PM
PC said...: What's up with the 'pedophilia' tag? Pedophilia is strictly defined as an attraction toward prepubescents, while the "girl" in question was 15.; 1/14/10, 12:51 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: There were no WMDs. They were destroyed in the mid-1990's.

That's a shame because no one told that to Clinton when he ordered Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; 1/14/10, 12:53 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: The worst thing Scott Ritter said, in my opinion, was this:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

With this kind of moral reasoning, I'm not surprised he likes underage girls.; 1/14/10, 1:03 PM
Robert Cook said...: Not to stray off the sad topic of Ritter's behavior, but referring to the "WMD's" (or whatever terribly menacing weapons or intentions our ogres du jour are supposedly bristling with) is a tried and true cover for all sorts of political skullduggery. Just because Clinton and others liked to make allegations in re: Hussein's phantom WMD doesn't mean they still existed. After all, Clinton is a war criminal and mass murderer just as are G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. And Madeline Albright, who said of the thousands of Iraqi children who were said to be dying as a result of the embargo we imposed on Iraq, "we think it's a price worth paying," is unutterably vile.

As to Ritter, I have admired his writings and stances on the crucial issues of the day, and I think it's a damn shame that he has allowed his personal lusts to undo him...and he's a damned fool to have put himself in a position where apologists for state criminality (i.e., war crimes, attacking other countries that are non-threatening) will gain great traction in discrediting his serious work as a result of his reckless personal behavior.; 1/14/10, 1:08 PM
Opus One Media said...: Don't mix the two even though it seems like an easy cheap shot.

The guy has real demons and problems and his personal/mental life are obviously a shambles. No sympathy though. Guys like this are sick and a threat to society.

That, however, has zip to do with Iraq, the sun rising in the east, or a non-flat world. Linking the two is silly and tawdry.

Let him hang so to speak but for the crime, not the speculation.; 1/14/10, 1:15 PM
Cedarford said...: PC said...
What's up with the 'pedophilia' tag? Pedophilia is strictly defined as an attraction toward prepubescents, while the "girl" in question was 15.

1. General ignorance by the American public.

2. Hysterical demand from Cult of Victimhood females and feminists that any female who eagerly puts evil penises in themselves, repeatedly...who later regret it.. are to be considered as child victims of evil penis-wielding predators. Even if they they are newly infantilized college seniors.

3. Stupid, lazy media - who famously referred to "the pedophile priests" even though the "victims" were generally enthusiastic homosexual teens. But "pedophile priest" sounded like good alliteration to the copy writers.

4. Curiously, at the same time, the taste for pederasty in prominent gay males is carefully covered up by the media and intelligensia - lest it cause harmful "bigotry towards gays". And noted pederasts like Oscar Wilde and Harvey Milk are held out as heroes and martyrs.; 1/14/10, 1:21 PM
knox said...: As to Ritter, I have admired his writings and stances on the crucial issues of the day

Well, there you have it. Odd in a bad way.; 1/14/10, 1:23 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Does he use "would you like to see a weapon of mass seduction" for a pickup line?

wv = capdet = gangbanger's way of saying Git Er Done.; 1/14/10, 1:32 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Don't mix the two even though it seems like an easy cheap shot.

That's real rich coming from a you.

Hell the fact you weren't struck by lightning after typing that makes me question if there is God.; 1/14/10, 1:33 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Is it me or does Cookie seem more upset that Ritter will be discredited than the fact he's a pedophile.; 1/14/10, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Scott Ritter!? And that's when I woke up.; 1/14/10, 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it me or does Cookie seem more upset that Ritter will be discredited than the fact he's a pedophile.

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few 15-year-old cherries.; 1/14/10, 1:49 PM
Methadras said...: Robert Cook said...

As to Ritter, I have admired his writings and stances on the crucial issues of the day,

Yeah, I'm sure some the NAMBLA musings really pulled at your heart-strings. Am I rite?; 1/14/10, 1:55 PM
Methadras said...: Hoosier Daddy said...

Is it me or does Cookie seem more upset that Ritter will be discredited than the fact he's a pedophile.

Oh, Cookie is always sad when another of his Leftist icons fall from grace into pedobear land.; 1/14/10, 2:20 PM
Johanna Lapp said...: I hear the WH may be looking for a new Safe Schools czar ...; 1/14/10, 2:30 PM
Alex said...: Ritter on Iraqi prisons:

Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

If this doesn't show absolute moral blindness I don't know what does. Peace for the sake of not upsetting Saddam's torture regime is not real peace, and it's compromising with unspeakable evil. I can't believe lefties hold this position.; 1/14/10, 2:56 PM
Alex said...: Cookie:

As to Ritter, I have admired his writings and stances on the crucial issues of the day, and I think it's a damn shame that he has allowed his personal lusts to undo him...

Basically too bad he got busted for pedophilia, because he was such a useful idiot for Saddam! My god...; 1/14/10, 2:57 PM
PC said...: All excellent points, Cedarford. But which of those explains Althouse's usage of the term?

I mean, she regularly excoriates people for lazy writing and improper usage. She also doesn't seem to regularly fall for 'Nancy Grace'-style hysteria.; 1/14/10, 3:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...because he was such a useful idiot for Saddam!"

Is this what we call people who, to counter the lies promulgated by schemers after power and resources, present the facts about an adversary's alleged capacity to harm us?

Hussein was a third-rate despot and never a threat to us. Because Bush/Cheney told lies about his weapons capacity and intentions purely to foment support and claim justification for a groundless war of aggression--an illegal act--and because Ritter provided facts and arguments counter to their lies...he's a useful idiot for Saddam?

He's an idiot, all right, and a lout, for giving in to his urge for jailbait, but regarding his voice against the rush to war crimes of the Bush Administration, he was a rare voice of reason.

As for those who seem to feel I should beat my chest over Ritter's offenses, well, all things being equal, Ritter is far less to be scorned than those twin shits of lies, murder and torture Bush and Cheney, (and their kissing cousin Obama).; 1/14/10, 3:32 PM
Robert Cook said...: There's some redundant phrasing in my third paragraph, but fuck it, I'm not going to try to fix it after the fact.; 1/14/10, 3:34 PM
knox said...: You can't make an omelet without breaking a few 15-year-old cherries.

LMAO! So wrong...; 1/14/10, 4:14 PM
knox said...: There's some redundant phrasing in my third paragraph, but fuck it, I'm not going to try to fix it after the fact.

There IS a god!!!; 1/14/10, 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, child molestation's one of those things about which reasonable people can differ. Foreign policy, not so much.; 1/14/10, 4:21 PM
Cedarford said...: Alex - "Basically too bad he got busted for pedophilia, because he was such a useful idiot for Saddam!"

NOT-PEDOPHILE!
PEDERAST.

Huge difference in criminal penalties and sex offender status.

And, strictly speaking, unless they come up with a sniffling little bimbette the perv did somehow...he doesn't face actual pederasty/statutory rape charges.

Contributing to delinquincy of a minor
Use of internet for underage sexual purposes.
Obscenity with a (he thought) minor.
Whatever other nuggets of perversion the investigations mine out of his hard drive and server files..

(Don't worry. Mr Ritter will have the book tossed at him. It is his 3rd strike.); 1/14/10, 5:07 PM
Bob_R said...: Pedophilia may be a good label for Ritter, but not for this particular crime. When my daughter and her friends were 14, 15, 16 I was definitely in favor of laws that kept men away from them. (Never got around to actually building the tower....) But there is no way that you can label pursuing them pedophilia.; 1/14/10, 5:46 PM
jr565 said...: Hey, remember when Scott Ritter said this in 1998?
"I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program,"

Or this?
"Well, basically, the investigations had come to a standstill were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with. "
Not how this echoes the idea that the security counsel was not in fact holding Iraqs feet the fire and containment was being undermined.
Or this:

"this administration's saying, we can't go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let's understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council. So we weren't allowed to do our job out of fear of a confrontation in which the United States would not be able to muster the required support of the Security Council to respond effectively or to respond in a manner which they had said they would respond in Resolution 1154."
Gee you don't say?

Or this:
This is lunacy. The bottom line is we haven't had-the United States hasn't had this kind of Security Council support for many years now, and Security Council support is eroding, eroding in large part because of a lack of American leadership.I don't know what they're waiting for. The Security Council is on a gradual, even a steep slide downhill in terms of its ability to support, or willingness to support the special commission. And there's no indication that anything the United States has been doing would turn the Security Council around. So I don't know-it sounds an awful lot like an excuse. It seems like it's a strategic pause, because it's been taking place for many years now"

You dont' say Scott, you' dont say.
Or this:
Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability." (as of 1998 when he stepped down)HUH?!?!
Or this:
"Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq.

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program."
This is a direct undermining of the idea that Iraq had no weapons and completly corroborates Duelfler's position post invasion that Iraq was simply biding its time, undermining sanctions and would be able to reconsitute weapons within a short period.
I'll stop only because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But here's the interview it came from.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

Note how he said all this right when he resigned as weapons inspector in 1998. The last time he saw any intelligence or was involved in the process in any way that was hands on he was arguing that Iraq was not complying, had weapons, or the ability, means and desire to reconsistute weapons, was defying the UN, and that containment was falling apart because we weren't holding Iraq's feet to the fire. And yet now his statements are diametrically the opposite. Was he lying then, or is he lying now since deciding to become an antiwar activist/pedophile?; 1/14/10, 5:57 PM
JAL said...: From Instapundit:
"So you don’t think Scott Ritter was blackmailable, or anything, and that this might have had something to do with his sudden change of position?"

I was always puzzled by his complete flip flop.

This is a real possibility. Mmmmm,; 1/14/10, 6:15 PM
jr565 said...: By the way, this conversion of thought that Ritter underwent seems to have similarly affected the dems once Bush took office. It was Clinton who was containming Iraq and it was under Clintons watch that Iraq had the lionshare of the resolutions passed against it for noncompliance. It was Clinton who setup the no fly zones, it was Clinton who sanctioned the hell out of Iraq? And for what? Non compliance. Who can forget Madeline Albright saying (when asked if the sanctions against Iraq, which were ostensibly killing half a million children were worth it):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
It was also Clinton and congress who nearly unanimously passed the IRaq Liberation Act which said Iraq was not complying and that regime change was needed AND that there would be a transition to a democratic Iraq. It was then the Clinton administration that bombed Iraq for 4 days for non compliance (Code Name Operation Desert Fox) after which all inspectors were removed until George Bush passing 1441, and parking his navy outside of Iraq demanded that inspectors be let back in for one last ditch effort to get some compliance.
What none of the anti war types ever address is that there is no history of Iraq ever being in compliance, or any expert ever suggesting that Iraq had no weapons or wasn't a threat. Our inspection history ended in 1998 (right around the time that Scott Ritter stepped down HE TOO saying exactly what Bush said later) with us passing the Iraq Liberation Act for non compliance, and then us bombing Iraq for non compliance. So please tell us, anti war types, that point in history where the consesus was ever anything other than Iraq was still a threat for WMD's/non compliance, or an assessment that was in any way at odds with Bush's assessment? Point that point in history where Clinton or the Un or democrats changed their tune on Iraq, and then Bush rushed in and started making up stories. Maybe if Scott Ritter Clinton and the democrats hadn't been such warmongers, they woudn't then have to feign amnesia when recent and basic history as well as their actions and statements are pointed out to them.; 1/14/10, 6:17 PM
chickelit said...: Wer wichste so spät durch Nacht so blind?
Es ist der Ritter mit einem Kind.
Er hält den Schwanz wohl in dem Faust,
Er reibt ihn schneller, bis er spritzte daraus.

Better?; 1/14/10, 7:17 PM
knox said...: Hey, child molestation's one of those things about which reasonable people can differ. Foreign policy, not so much.

LOL. Indeed.; 1/14/10, 7:27 PM
John Stodder said...: Except that the facts, as finally admitted by the Bush administration itself, validate Ritter's story, not the "intelligence" on which we went to war with Iraq in 2003.

But Ritter's alarmism was based on the Hussein regime's behavior, which didn't change from 1998, when he stopped working for the UN, to 2003 when he started making categorical statements that there were no weapons. In fact, you can make a strong case that the bipartisan belief that Hussein was hiding a WMD program was largely Ritter's doing. He was the face of the issue.

We went to war based on Hussein's noncompliance with the UN inspection regime. At that point, including the start of the war, prudence dictated that we could only assume that Hussein was hiding something.

Ritter had no different facts than Bush had in 2003, nor did he have any different facts in 1998 when he was still sounding the alarm. His flip-flop was like if Sarah Palin suddenly declared total support for the Obama health care plan. It might comfort the plan's supporters, but it still would be odd and questionable.

This is not to defend the war, which was arguably a bad way to respond to the potential threat Hussein posed at that time. But Ritter went so much further, claiming without qualification that there were no WMDs, it seemed clear to me he was offering propaganda in the guise of expert authority. It was confusing, given his prominent embrace of the opposite view. You anti-war folks didn't stop for a moment to think about the implications of his switch because it helped your side. But it was curious, no matter where you stand on the war itself.

I think he got flipped by someone who knew about his nasty habits.

Wouldn't be the first prominent person that happened to. It's said that J. Edgar Hoover absurdly denied the existence of the Mafia because they had pictures of him doing something an FBI director in his era wouldn't want to be seen doing.; 1/14/10, 7:49 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So please tell us, anti war types, that point in history where the consesus was ever anything other than Iraq was still a threat for WMD's/non compliance...."

Aside from the posturing of politicians pursuing their own agendas, aside from a consensus among the insular hierarchies of power in the government and media, where was there ever substantive evidence that Saddam was an actual--as opposed to alleged--threat to America? I never bought it; did you?

As for Ritter's change of heart on Iraq, he has said he never gave Iraq a clean bill of health, inasmuch as there were bits and pieces of Iraq's weapons program that could not be accounted for, but that they were fragmentary traces and did not constitute a substantial total of the whole, which (he says) had mostly been accounted for.Ritter also says Hussein had started to balk at letting the original UN inspectors continue their work because the inspection teams had become a front for CIA spies and Hussein was aware of this. (BTW, Hussein did not throw the inspectors out, as myth would have it; Richard Butler, then head of the inspection program, withdrew them.)

Now, Ritter may be self-serving and disingenuous, or he may had a consistent point of view from the late 1990s to the eve of war, or it may be a jumble of hypocrisy and sincerity on his part. Nevertheless...he was proved right and the Bush administration proved wrong when no WMD were ever found.

That we have squandered American lives and untold treasure, (and are still hemorrhaging that), that we have instituted an overt torture regime and have committed mass murder of thousands, that we have destroyed a nation, all on the basis of supposition and lies is a tragedy and a terrible crime.

Ritter is a putz and a fool for his inability to control himself, and he will rightly be punished if found guilty, but in the scheme of things, Bush and Cheney, et al. are among history's great villains and Ritter is inconsequential.; 1/14/10, 8:03 PM
Opus One Media said...: Robert Cook has it right. Ritter is a blip and his problems will remove him from all futher discussion, unless of course, Faux Noise needs another felon commentator or contributing panelist..but then he would have to be a liar as well.

He could be like so many of the Faux news team, phoning it in collect from behind bars.; 1/14/10, 8:17 PM
William said...: Saddam got stung by his own scam. It was he who feinted and posed as a possessor of WMD. His own generals thought that Iraq possessed such weapons. Only Scott Ritter had the perspecacity to see through this obvious subterfuge. I would think it far more likely that Saddam had WMD than that a fifteen year old girl would wish to see Scott Ritter masturbate, but I lack Scott's shrewd judgement.; 1/14/10, 9:01 PM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote it:
Aside from the posturing of politicians pursuing their own agendas, aside from a consensus among the insular hierarchies of power in the government and media, where was there ever substantive evidence that Saddam was an actual--as opposed to alleged--threat to America? I never bought it; did you?
Well, you'd have to define threat, wouldn't you? If the idea of a threat was that Sadaam Hussein would nuke the US, then no they weren't a threat. But the better question was, should they have been contained, and was containment working? Having Sadaam Hussein have unfettered access to weapons, considering how belligerent he was, was in no one's interest, which is why prior to Bush even taking office, the entire security counsel in the UN was on board for not allowing Iraq to get WMD's or account for WMD's. Do you think, Robert Cook that Iraq should or should not have been contained? If you say no can you honeslty say that Iraq would not now have a weapons program?
If you say that Iraq should be contained, then you have to ask whether containment was in fact working and at what cost. THere has to be a reason why Clinton would go so far as to sanction a country, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, pass the Iraq Liberation Act, and there has to be a reason that the security counsel is passing resolution after resolution.
You could just as easily ask, was the UN ever justified in passing resolutions against Iraq, was Clinton ever justified in passing the ILA, or sanctioning Iraq (considering the cost). No decision is made in a vacuum so there was ample justification for treating Iraq as a threat. You seem to be suggesting that not only was a war unwarranted, but that containment itself was unwarranted. Considering even Sadaam himself (if you believe his story) was arguing that he wanted to pretend that he had WMD's as a sign of strenght to his enemies, it makes no sense to suggest that, unfettered, he wouldn't seek out weapons programs,as based on his own logic the appearance of having weapons programs was in his interest. Are you arguing that?if
But establishing, that a containment program was necessary, implies that Iraq was a threat to those overseeing the containment program otherwise why did they do what they did?. resolution after resolution, sanction after sanction, bombing run after bombing run, no fly zones, the ILA imply that those trying to hold Iraq accountable felt a need to do so. Did Clinton wake up one day and decide to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids through sanctions, and did the UN go along with it on a whim?; 1/14/10, 9:25 PM
From Inwood said...: Can we say that this ex-Marine didn't hide his "Weapon of Mas-turbation"?

El Pollo Real

Good poem auf Deutsch. Can't tell if it's original since I couldn't Google it; good play on Ritter/Knight, but do you mean "knaben" in line three, or is "knoben" slang for penis?; 1/14/10, 9:50 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Do you think, Robert Cook that Iraq should or should not have been contained?"

I don't know. I guess I could be convinced by a good argument that he should have been contained, but I don't see there was an overriding necessity for it. My own view on the matter notwithstanding, he was successfully contained. As both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said separately prior to 9/11, Hussein was effectively neutered as a threat in the region and he was not seen to be capable of marshaling significant force against even his own neighbors in the region. Only the gullible, the paranoid, or knowing liars could have talked of him as a threat to the West.

We went to war for the reasons we usually do...to expand our dominance of more of the world and because in war there is profit to be made. As to whether Clinton "woke up one morning" and decided to kill a bunch of Iraqi kids...of course not. Those involved in crimes great or small usually have their justifications, their explanations as to why their actions were "necessary," why they were "forced" into this course of disastrous action or that. Our politicians don't look too deep, don't face the reality of the business they're about; I'm sure they come to believe their own propaganda simply as a matter of avoiding cognitive dissonance. Do politicians on the take consider themselves crooks? Did Ken Lay? Do the banksters, who continue to rape our country and who whine at the unfairness of those who complain at their undeserved salaries and bonuses? I'm sure they all see themselves as fine fellows even as they devastate the world around them.

It is probably a rare villain who faces himself squarely for what he is.; 1/14/10, 9:58 PM
chickelit said...: From Inwood:

It's a spoof of Goethe's Erlkönig which you'll find here in German and translated. Ritter's name means Knight in German and is derived from the verb reiten ( to ride) which figures prominently in the poem. Most people know this poem from Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance.
I wrote the 12:14 version in haste and you'll see the third and forth lines are pretty much unchanged.
I felt guilty for plagiarizing and so rewrote the third and fourth lines at 7:17, inspired by Victoria's Titusian suggestion.

I think Titus would be proud. :); 1/14/10, 10:41 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Alex,

Sure it's real peace: the peace of the grave.; 1/15/10, 12:01 AM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/15/10, 12:26 AM
Jason said...: Cook

Nevertheless...he was proved right and the Bush administration proved wrong when no WMD were ever found.

Wrong, twit.; 1/15/10, 12:28 AM
From Inwood said...: El Pollo Real

I can translate it. That's why I said I liked your play on Ritter/Knight.

Didn't get the Goethe reference.

And, so you did mean "knaben". OK.

And I think your later version which I glossed over ist besser.

And as C4's folks would say in Yiddish: Ritter is a Schwanz.; 1/15/10, 12:50 AM
Revenant said...: I guess I could be convinced by a good argument that he should have been contained, but I don't see there was an overriding necessity for it.

"It was ruled by a fascist dictator" isn't ample reason in and of itself?; 1/15/10, 12:58 AM
Gary Rosen said...: "sniffling little bimbette"

Leave it to C-fudd to blame the victim. Have fun jacking yourself off to sleep, perv.; 1/15/10, 2:09 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cooke wrote:
"Do you think, Robert Cook that Iraq should or should not have been contained?"

I don't know. I guess I could be convinced by a good argument that he should have been contained, but I don't see there was an overriding necessity for it.
Then you should direct your ire towards the UN, Clinton and all of those prior to Bush who carried out the action. And that includes every member of the security counsel, including France and Germany.
But if you can't even think of a good reason as to why Sadaam should even be contained the I can certainly see there is no point in arguing anything beyond containment with you, be it tough sanctions or even toughly worded resolutions. However, I also have to take anything you say as the writings of someone so extreme in their positions that they are not capable of dealing with actual issues in the real world.
And seriously, do you think that absent a containment policy that Iraq would not now have an active WMD program?

My own view on the matter notwithstanding, he was successfully contained. As both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said separately prior to 9/11, Hussein was effectively neutered as a threat in the region and he was not seen to be capable of marshaling significant force against even his own neighbors in the region. Only the gullible, the paranoid, or knowing liars could have talked of him as a threat to the West.
And yet we bombed Iraq, we sanctioned Iraq, we passed resolutions against Iraq, we had no fly zones etc etc etc. And by we, I mean, not just the west but every member of the security counsel. So you're talking about an awful lot of gullible and paranoid liars.And again, if in fact so many people were convinced that Iraq was not such a threat, you'd think it wouldn't be so easy to look at the historical record and find example after example that belies that argument.; 1/15/10, 4:06 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cooke also wrote:
We went to war for the reasons we usually do...to expand our dominance of more of the world and because in war there is profit to be made. As to whether Clinton "woke up one morning" and decided to kill a bunch of Iraqi kids...of course not. Those involved in crimes great or small usually have their justifications, their explanations as to why their actions were "necessary," why they were "forced" into this course of disastrous action or that.
Something tells me that you would view any bombing whatsoever as a crime as well as disastrous. What you don't seem to recognize though is that many actions are carried out because the alternative of not carrying out an action is equally as disastrous or as much of a crime and has it's own consequences.

It is probably a rare villain who faces himself squarely for what he is. Just as those who prop up dictators at the expense of those who have the dictators boots pressed firmly on their necks, most likely sleep at night secure in their fine morality that they secured peace, even though they left others to fend for themselves by propping up and protecting tryannies. And if containment worked, don't you have to measure the costs of containment? it was because it was hard for Iraq to pursue its interests, not because it was easy. So then, you'd have to look at the punitive aspects of containment and the costs for said containment. So take the sanctions . Are you ok with those sanctions? Do you think absent said sanctions we'd get compliance from Sadaam considering we didn't get compliance from Sadaam with sanctions? Didn't the Clinton administration impose sanctions precisely because when it hadn't Sadaam violated the terms of the cease fire and thus Clinton and co. had to come up with more punitive means to try to get Iraq to toe the line? The cost of that was thousands dying due to tough sanctions. Ok with that?

Despite all your ire at the neoncons and warmongers, Iraq was not exactly a kite flying utopia. So get off your high horse. Your defense of the status quo, is not some great moral position. rather, is just as much a defense of murder as the evil neocons praising war. At least at the end of the day, millions of Iraqis were able to dip their fingers in ink and vote after our deposing of Sadaam. Under your perfect moral state, they'd all vote 100% for Sadaam in perpetuity while Sadaam acted like the dictator he was and did dicatorial things to people powerless to deal with him. I'll accept the losses of innocents who die removing a dictator, if you accept the losses of the innocents who die keeping him in place.; 1/15/10, 4:06 AM
Opus One Media said...: jr565 said...
"So you're talking about an awful lot of gullible and paranoid liars...."

Exactly.; 1/15/10, 5:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Cedarford said:
"who famously referred to "the pedophile priests" even though the "victims" were generally enthusiastic homosexual teens. But "pedophile priest" sounded like good alliteration to the copy writers."

Speaking as a victim who was definitely neither enthusiastic, nor homosexual, nor a teenager (and a friend/fellow pupil of others who were also victims and have committed suicide) I can tell you that 'pedophile priests' is about a lot more than mere alliteration.; 1/15/10, 8:13 AM
Unknown said...: The carefully selected quotes from the internet chat are embarrassing, but not incriminating.

Maybe they're sitting on better evidence. I doubt it.

Innocent!; 4/12/10, 8:10 PM
Iraqi Dream said...: well it's clear that they make this on him to get ride of him
they want to shut him up; 5/20/10, 3:07 PM
P Mason said...: I can't believe the number of people who actually BUY INTO this OBVIOUS government-concocted sting aimed at Ritter for no other reason than to shut him up. The facts which prove a conspiracy to silence him are too numerous to post here, but just the fact that Ritter himself (in one interview) admitted that he knew he was being "watched," and that no amount of government surveillance would surprise him, discounts the almost laughable notion that he would turn around and actually ENGAGE in sexual activities which even the dimmest bulb knows is HEAVILY monitored by Police, and do it on THE WORLD-WIDE WEB! Scott Ritter was SET-UP so as to SILENCE HIS DISSENT. Julian Assange is being SET UP in a similar fashion in order that the U.S. is allowed to have him extradited. The U.S. Government is FAMOUS for tactics such as this, and only a fawning State Worshiper would think otherwise.; 12/13/10, 7:32 AM
freeyourmind said...: sad, you people have never of slander and false flags have you. maybe instead of believing the first thing you hear, try some research into the truth. This is how you discredit someone and its to easy with god and country idiots like you people. Go back to your TVs and the total propaganda that you are use to. Peace; 1/22/11, 2:04 PM