Ex-UN weapons inspector in child-sex sting

[TastesLikeChicken]

Wow, you really are fucked in your head, aren't you?

Out of 144 targets about 40 or so were known artillery to air and ATA units, the rest of the 100+ were factories, about 20 or so were military chemical labs.

Since you "used to be USAF" you should know this, it's not even classified, i'm fairly sure you can find most of it on google.

The firewall doesn't let me use search engines so you'll have to search for it yourself but that shouldn't be all that hard, even for a brainfucked child like you.

Erm, I already provided a Wiki link previously. Try reading it and get back to me with your revised numbers, son.

 

[Red Dawn]

I never knew Ritter was a Republican.

 

[amdhunter]

Hacked?

edited: thought this was still in OT.

 

[Craig234]

Why is the template for these threads:

Righty posts factoid with ridiculous claim attacking left (Ritter sex act proves he was wrong on WMD!)

Lefties patiently explain basic logic for the countless time.

Righties post more shrill repitition of craziness.

Left repeats.

Thread stops getting posts. Thread after thread after thread.

 

[shira]

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 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.

FNE has no intelligence to throw away. This is the authentic, unadorned non-intellect you're experiencing here.

 

[shira]

Sure - If he was willing to lie about the government setting him up the first time, why would he not be willing to lie about the actions of another government? Or maybe he was too busy downloading kiddy porn to even do a true investigation.

By this "principle," can we conclude that you have concluded that since Dick Cheney was provably lying when he said he had slam-dunk, classified information that proved that Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots, you now treat all of Cheney's statements as lies?

Bu...bu...bu...but that's different, because Cheney is your hero, right? And "principles" apply only when they serve your totally skewed world view.

So, you're both stupid AND unprincipled. Care to go for three?

 

[Greenman]

I fail to see what the problem is with people admitting that Saddam didn't have the WMDs we thought he did. Even the Bush Administration, the single entity with the most to gain out of finding them, admitted they were wrong.

Very odd for people to continue fighting for a position that even the originator no longer believes. Must be a 'librul' media conspiracy.

Are we talking about the WMD's that were used to kill the village of Kurds? Because he absolutely had nerve gas and he absolutely used it to kill several thousand Kurds. I believe you can still find the pictures at CNN.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Why is the template for these threads:

Righty posts factoid with ridiculous claim attacking left (Ritter sex act proves he was wrong on WMD!)

Lefties patiently explain basic logic for the countless time.

Righties post more shrill repitition of craziness.

Left repeats.

Thread stops getting posts. Thread after thread after thread.

Uh no, that's not it. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that the "Ritter sex act proves he was wrong on WMD!" but you and your types keep trying to stuff that straw...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Saddam claimed he blew them all up in 1993 too.

Somebody was wrong.

Yeah, the leftists love to try to trot out the "blew them up" BS every time this subject comes up but not a single shred of proof has ever been displayed to back up the claim. They cite actions taken by us or Saddam but never any verification of the actual claim. Yes, we all know we've been blowing shit up there for years, but it doesn't mean you get to claim we "blew them all up".

 

[cliftonite]

Yeah, the leftists love to try to trot out the "blew them up" BS every time this subject comes up but not a single shred of proof has ever been displayed to back up the claim. They cite actions taken by us or Saddam but never any verification of the actual claim. Yes, we all know we've been blowing shit up there for years, but it doesn't mean you get to claim we "blew them all up".

If no one blew them up then where are the WMDs?

 

[shira]

Uh no, that's not it. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that the "Ritter sex act proves he was wrong on WMD!" but you and your types keep trying to stuff that straw...

Any intellectually honest person reading this post of yours would conclude that you are denying that righties in this thread are implying that Ritter's alleged pedophilia - and his public statements about it - is reason to question his claims on WMDs. Naturally, you'll fall back on that word "proves," but I'm talking about intellectual honesty, not word games.

How WOULD you characterize the "point" of this thread in light of OP's conclusion?

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

Or in light of FNE's post?

Sure - If he was willing to lie about the government setting him up the first time, why would he not be willing to lie about the actions of another government?

But, gee, they aren't claiming "proof," so everything is just Jake.

 

[shira]

If no one blew them up then where are the WMDs?

The Right was wrong in every possible way on Iraq, and they still haven't lived that disgrace down. TLC and FNE and CSG aren't men enough to just own up to their utter wrong-headeness on Iraq, so they pathetically originate and support these ridiculous threads.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If no one blew them up then where are the WMDs?

And that is the question that is left to be answered. They existed(in some fashion) and were never verified to be destroyed. After lobbing a few bombs - no one ever went in to see if we got anything. Seems a bit odd - no?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Any intellectually honest person reading this post of yours would conclude that you are denying that righties in this thread are implying that Ritter's alleged pedophilia - and his public statements about it - is reason to question his claims on WMDs. Naturally, you'll fall back on that word "proves," but I'm talking about intellectual honesty, not word games.

How WOULD you characterize the "point" of this thread in light of OP's conclusion?



Or in light of FNE's post?



But, gee, they aren't claiming "proof," so everything is just Jake.

Can you read? none of those are close to what crybabycraig is trying to claim. He's claiming direct correlation - nothing rises to that level. It's more about his character. If the guy is a slimeball - is there any reason to trust his change of position AFTER he was no longer in intel?

Meh, you twits can try to protect the pedo and try to change the subject all you want but the FACT is, this is now the 2nd known/reported instance of him playing with kids online which makes him scum.

 

[shira]

Can you read? none of those are close to what crybabycraig is trying to claim. He's claiming direct correlation - nothing rises to that level. It's more about his character. If the guy is a slimeball - is there any reason to trust his change of position AFTER he was no longer in intel?

Meh, you twits can try to protect the pedo and try to change the subject all you want but the FACT is, this is now the 2nd known/reported instance of him playing with kids online which makes him scum.

We KNOW what the subject of THIS thread actually is. See the quotes in my previous thread. Deny it all you want, but your right-wing friends are indeed trying to make a direct connection.

You lose.

 

[cliftonite]

Can you read? none of those are close to what crybabycraig is trying to claim. He's claiming direct correlation - nothing rises to that level. It's more about his character. If the guy is a slimeball - is there any reason to trust his change of position AFTER he was no longer in intel?

Meh, you twits can try to protect the pedo and try to change the subject all you want but the FACT is, this is now the 2nd known/reported instance of him playing with kids online which makes him scum.

No one is protecting the pedo. You said that "Uh no, that's not it. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that the "Ritter sex act proves he was wrong on WMD!" but you and your types keep trying to stuff that straw..."

Yet you ask if there is any reason to trust his position about WMDs.

 

[Craig234]

Are we talking about the WMD's that were used to kill the village of Kurds? Because he absolutely had nerve gas and he absolutely used it to kill several thousand Kurds. I believe you can still find the pictures at CNN.

I don't recall the exact timeline.

But it something approximating:

Saddam mass kills 'his own people' (people are beginning to understand that phrase better in light of how much Kurds where Saddam had no government control were 'his own people', but they were people)

Rumsfeld is sent over to strengthen US relations

Bush 41 issues an NSAM saying official US policy is to closen US relations with Iraq

Much later Bush 43 had successfully re-entered inspectors who were proving there were no more WMD when Bush ordered them out, breaking his promise, to start a war.

These were not WMD anywhere near the timeline under discussion of the Bush 43 use of WMD for starting a war for entirely other reasons.

 

[Craig234]

Can you read? none of those are close to what crybabycraig is trying to claim. He's claiming direct correlation - nothing rises to that level. It's more about his character. If the guy is a slimeball - is there any reason to trust his change of position AFTER he was no longer in intel?

Meh, you twits can try to protect the pedo and try to change the subject all you want but the FACT is, this is now the 2nd known/reported instance of him playing with kids online which makes him scum.

Um, the right is emplyng exactly that, directly.

Ritter sex behavior = his WMD statements are not reliable.

From the OP:

"I had a suspicion all along he was a lying sack-o-shit, and not just about his pedo ways."

Can't get much more direct that that. Sex act = 'lying' about WMD, because "not just" clearly means WMD, the only thing Scott Ritter is known for saying.

By the third reply, CPA is saying 'the left had relied on him for some Bush attacks', again clearly inplying that the sex act invalidated his Bush attacks.

I posted the point that sex acts do not equate to challenging someone's political actions. I gave many examples, includig several President, who were not treated as lying about politics because of sex lies.

The right attackers are inconsistent on this matter - sex acts proove the person was lying about political views only for those they disagree with, but for others there's no problem.

You yourself make the argument that sex act invalidates his statements on WMD, while denying "direct correlation". That is direct correlation. You are very confused.

Your confusion continues as you toss in the argument that there's another reason he can't be trusted on his WMD statements, that he was 'out' of that work when he made them, mixing them all together.

If y ou really want to make that argument, make it - show how he as a top inspector for years was suddenly unable to tell what was accurate and what wasn't in his statements, how there was info showing him wrong.

Oh ya, his later statements were later proven *right* and your side's proven *wrong*. Oops.

It's funny how righties so transparently project. You say crybaby, and yet your post is a crybaby post, based on nothing more than not liking the truth that proves you wrong, so you make up bad logic attacks..

"Huh UH, we never said THAT, and THAT is true!"

 

[Greenman]

I don't recall the exact timeline.

But it something approximating:

Saddam mass kills 'his own people' (people are beginning to understand that phrase better in light of how much Kurds where Saddam had no government control were 'his own people', but they were people)

Rumsfeld is sent over to strengthen US relations

Bush 41 issues an NSAM saying official US policy is to closen US relations with Iraq

Much later Bush 43 had successfully re-entered inspectors who were proving there were no more WMD when Bush ordered them out, breaking his promise, to start a war.

These were not WMD anywhere near the timeline under discussion of the Bush 43 use of WMD for starting a war for entirely other reasons.

The fact remains that in the recent past Saddam did have WMD's and he used them. I frankly don't see how anyone could say he didn't have them after a certain date, unless there is some method of detection on a large scale that has been used in Iraq.
While it seems very unlikely that any large cache of WMD's exist in Iraq today, it's not a fact, it's a probability.

 

[Craig234]

The fact remains that in the recent past Saddam did have WMD's and he used them. I frankly don't see how anyone could say he didn't have them after a certain date, unless there is some method of detection on a large scale that has been used in Iraq.
While it seems very unlikely that any large cache of WMD's exist in Iraq today, it's not a fact, it's a probability.

What are you trying to say? The way to address Saddam's WMD question was, as Bush said, through the inspectors Bush got into Iraq, who were confirming there were WMD, until Bush replaced them with war.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The fact remains that in the recent past Saddam did have WMD's and he used them. I frankly don't see how anyone could say he didn't have them after a certain date, unless there is some method of detection on a large scale that has been used in Iraq.
While it seems very unlikely that any large cache of WMD's exist in Iraq today, it's not a fact, it's a probability.

It was stated that Saddam had them in fact, not probability. The problem was that WMDs were never the reason, but one of the excuses to depose the rat bastard.

BTW TLC, Scooter Libby wrote about bears having sex with little girls, so it seems that the inspectors and the prior administration have a common interest after all.

 

[nick1985]

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

I cant remember a post of yours that didnt have the word 'idiot' in it

 

[nobodyknows]

Are we talking about the WMD's that were used to kill the village of Kurds? Because he absolutely had nerve gas and he absolutely used it to kill several thousand Kurds. I believe you can still find the pictures at CNN.

Nobody is disputing that Saddam had WMD's. The dispute is over whether he still had them when we used them as a reason to invade. Apparently some people beleive that Ritters sexual prefrences are somehow related to Saddam's WMD's?

Do try to keep up.

 

[alchemize]

Craig really likes to pick and choose the pedophiles he defends. Funny how that works.

 

[Craig234]

Craig really likes to pick and choose the pedophiles he defends. Funny how that works.

You aren't very discriminating about what lies you tell. You just say any.