Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sex sting in Poconos nets former chief U.N. weapons inspector (Scott Ritter)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:54 AM
Original message
Sex sting in Poconos nets former chief U.N. weapons inspector (Scott Ritter)

By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record Writer
January 14, 2010

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.

Scott Ritter of Delmar, N.Y., who served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98 and who was an outspoken critic of the second Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq, is accused of contacting what turned out to be a Barrett Township police officer posing undercover as a teen girl.


The police affidavit gives the following account:

Officer Ryan Venneman was posing as 15-year-old "Emily" in an online chat room when he was contacted by someone using the name "Delmarm4fun." This person, later identified as Ritter, told "Emily" he was a 44-year-old male from Albany, N.Y.

"Emily" told Ritter she was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos, at which point Ritter asked for a picture other than the one "Emily" had posted on her account. Ritter then sent her a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate on camera.

"Emily" asked Ritter for his cell phone number, which he provided.

Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told she was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was 15 and turned off his webcam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.

Ritter told "Emily" he had been fantasizing about having sex with her, to which she replied: "Guess you turned it off ..."

Ritter then said: "You want to see it finish," reactivated his

webcam and continued masturbating and ejaculated on camera.

The online conversation occurred in February 2009, but the investigation lasted until November, when Ritter was charged, because police had to undergo the lengthy process of obtaining court orders to get Ritter's cell phone and computer information.

Ritter is awaiting his next appearance in Monroe County Common Pleas Court. He waived his right last month to a preliminary hearing and is free on $25,000 unsecured bail.

<snip>

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. And they still can't arrest Bush and Cheney for
war crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. so no one should be arrested for anything until bush cheney are charged with war crimes?
your comment is simply a non-sequitur
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
36. Maybe nobody should be entrapped until Bush and Cheney are charged - how would that be
Do you have any idea what non-sequitur means? Making one event conditional on another has nothing to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Self Delete - misplaced
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 08:35 AM by ThomWV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. yes, and bush/cheney not being charged has jackshit to do with
Scott Ritter jerking off on camera to what he thought was a 15 year old girl, genius. looks like you're the one who hasn't a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
47. It wasn't entrapment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. sad isn't it
Mr Ritter I hope you're ready for what awaits you in the lockup. Only pedophiles like other pedophiles the rest of us detest them. Most of your future cell mates will be in that hate you group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. In survival training we were taught to go for the throat
air and blood to the brain is badly needed to continue the fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
58. are you in prison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. I seem to recall he had similar charges against him a few years back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Didn't know that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. From his Wiki page, it was in 2001:
Attempted endangerment charge

Ritter was arrested in June, 2001,<32><33> and according to one source also in April, 2001, in connection with police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature. He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child", although the sealing of the court records in the case means as a legal matter there was no incident. Ritter claimed the anonymous leak of sealed court records of his arrest was a politically-motivated effort to distract attention from his statements about Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Sadly similar to the charges we see here, now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #18
34. If I remember correctly there has never been a case where a pedo
changed his spots. not one out of all the millions, not one. I think that is why we have the laws we have today concerning this. Maybe I'm mistaken but I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Yes, and it was used to discredit what he had to say about WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. unfortunately, he's discrediting himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. It's disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
42. +1 !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenMetalFlake Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
74. it was very political since the details of that case were supposed to sealed
author/professor mark crispin miller wrote extensively about it some yrs back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
era veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
56. Me Too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is nothing new for Ritter
Ritter was arrested in June, 2001, and according to one source also in April, 2001, in connection with police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature. He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child", although the sealing of the court records in the case means as a legal matter there was no incident. Ritter claimed the anonymous leak of sealed court records of his arrest was a politically-motivated effort to distract attention from his statements about Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Attempted_end...


He's disgusting :puke:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Believe this is his 2nd strike...
Hasn't Ritter already gotten himself in trouble trying to hook up with underage girls?

I remember there was some Burger King incident a few years back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuraVidaDreamin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. aww shit!
I have books written by Ritter. I've seen him speak on the illegal invasion/war on Iraq. He made
a case for war crimes against B/Ch- Now why the hell did he go and do this for? Creep-
Blew his credibility all over a web cam- asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. those are my sentiments as well.
pretty clear the guy has a serious problem. it doesn't speak to his credibility but this kind of crap does make whatever he has to say irrelevant as his history as a child predator will arise every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Per report, he didn't know how old she was. Do NOT rule out the possibility that he's being targeted
-edit-

Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told she was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was 15 and turned off his webcam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.

-edit-

Maybe he's a sleazy bastard. But maybe there's more to it. You don't speak out against the BFEE with impunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. then he turned it back on again and masturbated to orgasm on his webcam
he's a little bit more than just a sleazy bastard. he's sick. who does that shit aside from predators and pedeophiles?

The BFEE didn't make him jerk off on camera to what he thought was a 15 year old girl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Okay. Agreed. I confess, I did not read that the first time (not my favorite subject matter).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
9. Dumb ass.
Way to blow up your career, family etc. He was a great and credible resource and now that's all history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. So humiliating and self-destructive
He's an addict with a problem. Hope he gets help and is able to stay alive professionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. as the third time, according to the article, I'm afraid that
his ability to stay alive professionally is completely compromised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. He may be an addict. It's just as likely he's a serial predator.
If he's been 'successful' at luring underage girls, he may just think he can get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
80. He's not an addict, he's a fucking pedo.
He doesn't deserve to "stay alive professionally" he deserves prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. OK, let's give him the chair then
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Snort. Why not, if all you think is that they need "therapy".
I'll leave the coddling of pedophiles to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. "Therapy"?
What else is to be done with a sick person, other than to help him get healthy? You think just giving him jail-time is going to do one damned thing to change him?

Retrograde fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Naive fool.
Pedos can't be fixed or made into upstanding citizens. It's been proven again and again.

They're like rabid dogs. Lock them up or kill them. Because they will keep hurting children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. He is more of an ephebophile than a pedophile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

What he did was wrong, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as pedophilia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #89
103. Right. Technically, he's not a pedophile.
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 02:34 AM by immoderate
I always have a problem with decoys. I know this is not entrapment. Nevertheless, no crime was comitted, because there was no minor. I get that intent was demonstrated, but it still gives me a problem.

My biggest problem is that Ritter should have known that they would be after him! How could he be so stupid? :shrug:

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Who is they though
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 02:51 AM by Juche
Ritter has a history of doing this stuff. I think he was caught a couple of times back in 2001 for this. So I doubt he went from 2001 all the way to 2009 and never did this except the 3 times that law enforcement caught him. He has probably done this dozens of times with real children. I don't think anyone from the government was out to get Ritter. If they wanted to bring him down, they already had his arrest records from 2001 about him doing this stuff. They could've used that to discredit him when he was speaking out in 2003 about the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest /


ALBANY, New York (CNN) -- Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector who has been an outspoken critic of a possible war with Iraq, was arrested in 2001 and charged with a misdemeanor after allegedly communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 16-year-old girl, a source close to the investigation has told CNN.

Ritter confirmed the arrest in an interview with CNN Wednesday but declined to confirm any detail about the nature of the case.

"The facts are simple," Ritter said. "I was arrested in June of 2001. I was charged with a Class B misdemeanor and I stood before a judge in the town of Colonie in a public session with my wife by my side."

"The file was sealed. Those are the facts. I am ethically and legally bound not to discuss any aspect of this case," Ritter said. "So is everybody else involved. Unfortunately, there appear to be those who don't feel to be bound by rule of law."

The source said Ritter had arranged in an Internet chat room to meet with the girl at a Burger King in Colonie, a suburb of Albany, so she could witness him masturbating. The source said Ritter was charged with "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child," a Class B misdemeanor.

The source also said Ritter was confronted by police in April 2001 after communicating with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old.

Ritter declined comment on those claims.





Either way (at the risk of being unpopular) I don't consider masturbating on webcam to a 15 year old girl who voluntarily chooses to watch to be in the same league as something like the forcible rape of a 7 year old. One is pedophilia, the other is not. Both are and should be crimes, but they aren't the same thing. This moral panic based lumping of all sex crimes together is how we ended up as a society that lumps serial pedophiles in the same category as people who urinate in a parking lot and calls both 'sex offenders'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #104
107. I do agree wtih you there; it's much more serious with small children than with those just a bit
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 03:14 AM by LeftishBrit
underage. And there's a big difference between rape of anyone and this sort of thing. I agree that lumping everything together doesn't help. Still wrong and sleazy, however; especially as we're talking about a middle-aged man, not an 18-year-old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #85
105. Unfortunately therapy doesn't have a good record of curing paedophiles
Prison doesn't either, but at least it protects the public from them for a while.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. And then what?
He's not getting life for jerking off on a webcam in front of an undercover cop, who basically discouraged him from turning off the camera once he led Ritter to believe he was dealing with a 15-year-old. There are no "cures," but there are ways to reduce re-offending rates, particularly when you combine therapy with drugs designed to lower testosterone levels.

He has a problem, he's not going away for life, so the issue fairly quickly becomes how to make him less of a danger to society and to himself once everyone puts down their pitchforks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. We need far better treatment
The vast majority of pedophiles and rapists (which I don't consider Ritter) are never caught. I think 90% aren't even brought to the attention of law enforcement.

Even if you catch the 10% and put them away for life, another 90% still exist under the radar. Sex crimes are probably the biggest public health crisis we have, that and untreated mental illness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillGal Donating Member (212 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
113. +1000 No excuse at all at what this pedophile did. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
11. The only reason to waive a preliminary hearing is to get a plea bargain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
20. He's a Weapon of Self Destruction.
Sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsBrady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
22. ewwww n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
24. jesus
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 08:00 AM by bigtree
. . . after all of the benefit of the doubt given him for the last accusations. shit shit shit shit shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
25. Oh, fuck, no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElmoBlatz Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
26. Sounds like he has a WMD in his britches
But the only thing its destroying is him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
27. So, he thought it would be okay if he didn't look at HER but SHE looked at HIM? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
29. EWW!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
30. Note to online pedophiles....
It's the police. It's always the police.

Jesus H. Christ, how many times do these guys have to get busted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. "I made some sweet tea it's on the table, I just gotta put this stuff in the washer real quick ."
<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/chris hansen/Coolbry1226/ChrisHansenMotivator.jpg?o=1" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0"></a>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
41. hubby had tv on late at night on msnbc. that show about catching predator came on
he sleeps with tv on so when i got into room, i watched a little bet. had never seen the show. this was just recently. was one with a man bringing his 4 yr old with him, cause his wife was out doing something and he was taking care of child. i saw about three different guys. wow

but, i thought geez, this show has been on how many years, and men are still falling for it. i think that was the most astounding thing out of the whole show. even bringing your kid along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. There was an article in /Wired/ where the author suggested that.
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 08:50 AM by LoZoccolo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
45. ...
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 09:22 AM by tammywammy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
31. Wow.
Sad and sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
32. so i guess he won't be invited to testify in congress any time soon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
37. K&R #5 for every time he has been cited favorably here on DU. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #37
52. no one on DU has submitted Ritter's sexual life for approval -- he was right about WMD
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 10:23 AM by nashville_brook
So, smearing everyone on DU who has ever used his data in an argument against the War in Iraq, shouldn't be on any DUer's to-do list.

Leave that to Limbaugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
79. Well, let's start: 1) You realize you just smeared me by equating me with LIMBOsevic (no question
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 01:21 PM by UTUSN
mark, since I don't really want an answer).

2) I myself was totally, completely against the Iraq Attack as I named it for myself, including arguing against the Tweety supporters who claimed him to be anti-war when he was cheerleading Shrub.

3) Somebody (RITTER) who has a significant problem area in his life needs to devote his ENTIRE attention to that and let other issues be addressed by others, and anybody who was citing him as an authority on the WMD could have easily cited somebody else who did not have a severe gash in his judgment.

4) Whatever "value" he added to the WMD issue was outmatched by the approbation he attracted for this other thing.

Thankee!1

Oh, and On Edit/P.S.: 5) For whatever odd reason, I don't need to rely on "experts" or other such authority figures to bolster what I support or oppose. All through the Shrub years and long before that, I have marveled at how all these people who were supposedly highly sophisticated, deeply connected, and with extensive intelligence resources have held the most screwed up policies and persons based on "what they knew then," when simple little lowly me KNEW all the crap was crap, back at the time, without all of those resources. And, to the point, without certain experts or authority figures telling me what to espouse.

===========P.P.S, oh, and just to close the possible loophole where I might be alleged to portraying myself as omniscient, WHEN I'm wrong I'm wrong and have nobody to blame or cite but myself!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
39. *facepalm*
Don't these people have a life already??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
44. What. A. Fuckhead.
:facepalm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
46. Who still thinks these teen girls on the internet are really teen girls??
These guys are idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
81. I'm beginning to think I'm the only real teen girl on the internet...
For reals, guys...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
48. can they PLEASE set up Rush or Rove? they won't have to dangle the bait for long
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mugu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
49. What a sicko. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
50. FU Ritter. Now all your criticism will be dismissed because you're a perv.

You FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
51. didnt something similar happen a few years back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. Yes. read the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. lol, ok
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
64. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a snarky jackhole
I have been embarassed countless times by asking something or arguing something which was covered clearly in the linked article, but I hadn't taken the time to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
55. Wow. Ejaculating on camera gives new meaning to the term "smoking gun".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
57. Yea ...one link from a podunk town ...where's the proof? Why isn't this on more news outlets?
Bogus info. I wish people wouldn't post bull shit without legitimate links and sources. This shit really makes me mad. Has he even been to court yet? How do we know he was really involved? How can we be sure he's guilty? The supreme court must rule on this case or I am not convinced of his involvement.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. Umm
It's all over the news...

Plus---I read the police report.

http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Ya know ...there's a reason for that "sarcasm" on the bottom.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
72. My bad---
Sarcasm challenged today..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
59. Damn
A pattern does seem to be emerging with dear Mr. Ritter and it appears there is strong evidence against him this time. If he's convicted, his stay in prison will not be pleasant.

And in response to a few comments above regarding DUers supporting Ritter and his efforts against the Iraq war...he was right about WMD's and that will remain a historical fact. I feel no guilt having supported his experience as a weapons inspector and knowledge of WMD's, and am also quite capable of supporting a very strong punishment for his heinous crimes should he be found guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. Yuck. What the hell is wrong with this guy? His reputation just went down the tubes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
era veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
62. He has lost credibility like Dan Rather ruining the case against shrub's AWOL
Rather pissed me off too. That would of been a good get at bush's chickenshit self and his chickenhawk actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
65. I am waiting for the trial
Who knows whether this evidence will turn out to be as convincing as is implied in the article. I find it hard to believe that someone in his position would be this stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. I agree. Lets wait. Nevertheless, this is not a good piece of news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #66
91. Agreed.
Let's wait for the trial, but this story sounds convincing. That is all that it is at this point...a story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. people with sexual addictions can behave incredibly stupidly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
68. Sex addiction must be a tough one. Addiction takes down some great people
He had such great potential. It's over for him. He wont even be able to work now. He needs to pay for counseling for the rest of his sick life now too, somehow. IF allegations prove true, which it looks like it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. If he is addicted to sex, he should stick to adults
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. Yep, he'd be broke or in perpetual chaos -but that's his deal
If it's true, and it looks like it is, he's very sick. Not acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
69. They need to set up a safe chatroom for these freaks. With fat chics acting like
younguns. They can pretend that they are young, and we as parents can sleep better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. "Fat Chics"
Classy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. I've heard that reference before.
Hmmm...

:think:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Regret My New Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. Fat dudes!
I'm classy too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #73
109. Anything but what they really envision
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
70. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
75. Oh damn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
77. Those who are easily compromised are easily recruited.
Edited on Thu Jan-14-10 01:07 PM by leveymg
Few know this about Ritter, but he was the guy who planted the idea of "mobile bio-weapons labs" in Ahmad Chalabi's brain during a meeting they had in Chalabi's London apartment in 1998 when Ritter was a UN weapons inspector. Sure enough, several months later, "Curve Ball" showed up seeking asylum in Germany, claiming he had details about anthrax labs being built by Iraq. We all know the rest. See, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/07/040607fa_fa...

Ritter never explained why he was meeting with Chalabi, or whose idea it was. Here's Jane Meyer's account in the New Yorker:

* from the issue
* cartoon bank
* e-mail this

The meeting took place in Chalabis apartment, on Conduit Street in Mayfair. Half a dozen Arab servants served tea, Ritter recalled. Chalabi sat on a couch, taking notes, playing the overlord. (Ahmed Alawi, an I.N.C. official, also attended the meeting.)

I should have asked him what he could give me, Ritter said. Instead, I let him ask me, What do you need? The result, he said, was that we made the biggest mistake in the intelligence business: we identified all of our gaps. Over the next several hours, Ritter said, he outlined most of the U.N. inspectors capabilities and theories, telling Chalabi how they had searched for underground bunkers with ground-penetrating radar. He also told Chalabi of his suspicion that Saddam may have had mobile chemical- or biological-weapons laboratories, which would explain why investigators hadnt been able to find them. We made that up! Ritter said. We told Chalabi, and, lo and behold, hes fabricated a source for the mobile labs. (The I.N.C. has been accused of sponsoring a source who claimed knowledge of mobile labs.) When Ritter left the U.N., in August, 1998, there was still no evidence of mobile weapons laboratories. Chalabis people, Ritter said, eventually supplied detailed intelligence on Saddams alleged W.M.D. programs, but it was all crap.

Ritter had one other memorable encounter with Chalabi. Six months after the London meeting, Ritter was feeling dispirited. U.N. investigators had discovered trace evidence of VX nerve gas on warheads in Iraq; he was concerned that Saddam was still hiding something. Chalabi invited him to the town house in Georgetown, and they discussed the VX discovery. Chalabi then talked to Ritter about doing intelligence work for the I.N.C.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/07/040607fa_fa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
86. kick sad but needs exposure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
88. Again! This is like the 3rd time he has been caught doing this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
90. Somewhat par for the course for the UN
When UN teams go in someplace, human trafficking increases. It is unfortunately part of the culture - not so different in that regard (rape culture/male domination/male entitlement) than when a regular military unit goes someplace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. The UN also fights human trafficking
And considering that many of the UN's troops come from countries with less clear laws about women and minority rights (I think Pakistan & Nigeria provide the most UN troops), its not surprising if that is true. But sadly that has been the case in human history, sex crimes can follow a military occupation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
93. Neutralized.
Likud must have some upcoming Iran plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Unwrap the tinfoil.
Guy's a perv.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. You would know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #95
97. Be careful.
If you're not nice to me, I'll send the Mossad to attack your basement.

:crazy:
:tinfoilhat:
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #97
99. Careful, he's "troubled."
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #93
98. OMIGOD, the joooooooooooos are coming!!!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #98
101. You're snarking at a Jew. Who's the bigot?
Likud is a Right-Wing, Neocon-affiliated political party. And you have a foot in your mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. Actually I don't. You're the one who defended that piece of shit Scott Ritter.
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 02:19 AM by Jim Sagle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #93
106. So the Mossad put a gun to his head and made him jerk off on camera?
or did they blackmail him into it?

Seek help. you're sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
96. link to Police Affidavit here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #96
112. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
100. Didn't he co-author a book with a well known DUer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #100
110. Yes
Co-author night be considered a stretch as I understood the book was based on one long face to face interview with Ritter. Our DUer, like most DUers, felt totally betrayed when the first story broke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC