Ex-UN weapons inspector in child-sex sting

[TastesLikeChicken]

Some in here may remember Scott Ritter being brought up on child porn charges back in 2003. At the time he claimed the charges were trumped-up, false allegations coming from the White House because of his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Well, he been nabbed again. This time the evidence is a bit more damning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34864444/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Scott Ritter, 48, of Delmar, New York, engaged in a sexually graphic online chat with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl nearly a year ago, police in northeastern Pennsylvania said. He then turned on a webcam and masturbated on camera, they charged.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I had a suspicion all along he was a lying sack-o-shit, and not just about his pedo ways.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Hey, Chickie. WB.

Just because he's a freak and deserves to be in jail for a long time doesn't mean his CIA work was crap.





--

 

[Robor]

Sicko fvck. Book >>>>>>> him!

 

[CPA]

Some may remember? They better, because he was constantly used as a reference during the Bush years for many of the anti-war posters on this forum.

 

[Robor]

Some may remember? They better, because he was constantly used as a reference during the Bush years for many of the anti-war posters on this forum.

Ah, so now anyone who disagree(d)(s) with the war is linked to a pedo. Whatever.

 

[Craig234]

Ah, so now anyone who disagree(d)(s) with the war is linked to a pedo. Whatever.

Right-wing non-logic. A sexual problem makes everything you say about WMD wrong - if it disagrees with the right. Glad they finally got the evidence to prove there were WMD after all.

No, just like the "Haiti is Obama's Katrina!" gotcha thread to 'get even' for Bush getting blamned for Katrina, this is the get even thread for anyone challenging Bush on WMD. They're idiots.

For what it's worth, Ritter has always seemed to have issues to me - I had no idea if they're sexual, but his interviews have had a shrillness to them, him harping on 'he's the alpha dog' and how confrontational he'd be with Saddam's forces and such, that always made me wonder some things about him and his reliability. I've never relied on his statements much that I recall.

He said the earlier charges from 2001 issues that were dropped were concocted to silence a critic of the administration.

There are two sad things about that. One is that he might have prostituted the issue of anti-Bush criticism to make an excuse for his behavior. The second is that his charge is even believable, that the nature of the Bush administration was that it could well be true, as they were out pushing US Attorneys to file political charges, with Democrats getting three times the investigations Republicans did, even while Republicans dominated all branches.

 

[Zebo]

Even a working clock needs it's batteries replaced..or something like that.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Apparently all Saddam had to do is give him some kiddie porn pics and he could roll a nuke down mainstreet and nobody would notice.

 

[Craig234]

Apparently all Saddam had to do is give him some kiddie porn pics and he could roll a nuke down mainstreet and nobody would notice.

I can't rememebr a post of yours that wasn't idiocy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Apparently all Saddam had to do is give him some kiddie porn pics and he could roll a nuke down mainstreet and nobody would notice.

Yeah, cause SH was a real threat, he had all of that Nigerian uranium, those chemical and biological weapons and the UAVS to transport them too.

I knew he had all of that but now you're saying that he had nukes too?

You have to be a left wing poster because no right wing poster could want to destroy the right with arguments such as yours.

On the topic at hand, bleed the fuck, bleed him just long enough and let him recover, reapeat until organ failure.

Does it invalidate any of his work though? Of course not.

This is NOT the same as if he was a politician where personal choices matters, this is a guy doing one job that has nothing to do with what he's been accused of.

I think everyone gets that but for some reason some people just throw their intelligence away and go yeehaw crazy at times for no good reason.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I can't rememebr a post of yours that wasn't idiocy.

He's trolling, that is what he does and that is all he does, he never supplies relevant information nor any sort of educated opinion, he just trolls.

I'm thinking 13/M/mums basement.

 

[Ozoned]

A sexual problem .

Just curious, how do you view his sexual problem? Would you call it a problem, or was he born that way?

 

[Dari]

I cannot wait to hear what happens to him in prison.

 

[Craig234]

Just curious, how do you view his sexual problem? Would you call it a problem, or was he born that way?

I can't begin to speculate about the reason he masturbated in front of a 15 year old girl. It sounds like some sort of compulsive behavior for very unknown reasons, which I doubt are biological.

A few things that may ormay no thave anything to do with him would be the 'high' of doing something forbidden to problems leading him to prefer someone that age.

By the way, the remarks about 'pedophila' are wrong. That's a condition involving an attraction to pre-pubescent children. At 15, she does not indicate pedophilia.

Are you trying to compare his behavior on this to homosexuality, which is generally a biologically-determined trait?

 

[Ozoned]

I Are you trying to compare his behavior on this to homosexuality, which is generally a biologically-determined trait?

No. Just trying to find where you draw the line. Your carefully worded reply says you're not sure,,,,that's good enough for me.

 

[Sinsear]

I'm thinking 13/M/mums basement.

Gee. That's what most of us think about you.

 

[Zebo]

I'm thinking 13/M/mums basement.

I thought you told me to keep your secrets and now you go blabbing it in an open forum. OPSEC man.

 

[cliftonite]

Some in here may remember Scott Ritter being brought up on child porn charges back in 2003. At the time he claimed the charges were trumped-up, false allegations coming from the White House because of his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Well, he been nabbed again. This time the evidence is a bit more damning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34864444/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



Good riddance to bad rubbish. I had a suspicion all along he was a lying sack-o-shit, and not just about his pedo ways.

What other than the pedo stuff did you suspect him of lying?

 

[fskimospy]

There have been several innuendos in this thread that somehow Scott Ritter being a sex offender would affect his statements and analysis on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (or to be more exact, the complete lack of them). Can someone draw this chain of causation out for me? I'd be interested.

 

[Zebo]

There have been several innuendos in this thread that somehow Scott Ritter being a sex offender would affect his statements and analysis on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (or to be more exact, the complete lack of them). Can someone draw this chain of causation out for me? I'd be interested.

Oh please don't be so naive. It speaks to character and integrity of the person and we do this 'generalization' all the time no matter how off base or close to the mark it is.

After Bush lied to me about WMD's I could no longer believe anything he said.

Problem is Ritter was right so this thread in a non sequitur of course. A Troll.

 

[Craig234]

Oh please don't be so naive. It speaks to character and integrity of the person and we do this 'generalization' all the time no matter how off base or close to the mark it is.

After Bush lied to me about WMD's I could no longer believe anything he said.

Sex acts don't invalidate political acts.

Bill Clinton's positions on issues, lke Bosnia, were not 'less credible' for the Monical scandal.

Eliot Spitzer's crusade against Wall Street abuse wasn't suddenly wrong because of his sex scandal.

John Edwards' positions on poverty in America weren't less worthy because of his sex scandal.

Don't endorse the idiocy of trying to equate them, join us in condmening the idiocy.

Now, if there are further circumstances on 'lack of character', it can change that.

The above doesn't require you to condone the acts or say they're not important personal issues.

But does it really prove the people are not otherwise good public servants? Were FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, untrustworthy leaders who shouldn't be listened to on issues for their affairs?

Who's being naive?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There have been several innuendos in this thread that somehow Scott Ritter being a sex offender would affect his statements and analysis on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (or to be more exact, the complete lack of them). Can someone draw this chain of causation out for me? I'd be interested.

Well, I personally don't tie the two directly but....

Ritter = pedderass = mentally unstable I'm not sure I'd trust anyone like that

Oh, and btw, Scott's own work that draws into question his "statements and analysis of Iraq's" WMD programs.

 

[Zebo]

Sex acts don't invalidate political acts.

Bill Clinton's positions on issues, lke Bosnia, were not 'less credible' for the Monical scandal.

Eliot Spitzer's crusade against Wall Street abuse wasn't suddenly wrong because of his sex scandal.

John Edwards' positions on poverty in America weren't less worthy because of his sex scandal.

Don't endorse the idiocy of trying to equate them, join us in condmening the idiocy.

Now, if there are further circumstances on 'lack of character', it can change that.

The above doesn't require you to condone the acts or say they're not important personal issues.

But does it really prove the people are not otherwise good public servants? Were FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, untrustworthy leaders who shouldn't be listened to on issues for their affairs?

Who's being naive?

Yes but all these men would have had significant hurdles to public life had crimes been done before hand as people have no problem associating private and public life.

Who's being naive? Indeed.

 

[Craig234]

Yes but all these men would have had significant hurdles to public life had crimes been done before hand as people have no problem associating private and public life.

Who's being naive? Indeed.

We're talking about whether a sex act discredits his work on WMD, and you respond about the issue being whether the person is already established with the public. You have lost track of the topic.

Naive is the gullible statement that any sex act immediatrely discredits someone's political or in this case WMD work. That's some sort of ignorant media-hyped scandal nonsense. "oh, he's BAD, he only lies!"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"the timing and manner in which Ritter's record came to light seems Clintonesque/Nixonian . . . ie gather dirt on opponent to discredit them."

Just one of the interesting quotes from that thread. I wonder who's trying to discredit him this time he went after little girls?