Scott Ritter ..an idiot..YES!

[bentwookie]

ritter is a focking turd, the more he makes the press circuit, the more moronic he looks and sounds.

One newshost on the Capital Report dug up facts that he took $400,000 from a Iraqi-American to make a movie about Iraq.

 

[etech]

Found this at the {H}ard Forum.


An interview with Scott Ritter, Restaurant Inspector.

Q. Mr. Ritter, in 1998 you were dismissed as a New York City food safety inspector after complaints from the ?Taste of Tikrit? cafe. In subsequent testimony to the City Sanitation Board, you said the cafe ?had mouse droppings in such quantity that they blocked the kitchen exits; the restaurant?s refrigeration consisted of one illegal immigrant waving a popsicle over a pile of chicken carcasses, and the owners were forced to play Led Zeppelin records at 120 decibels to drown out the sound of buzzing flies in the back.?

You also noted that the management has five-year old children operating a rusty meat slicer and uses mace on tardy employees. In your testimony you insisted - rather strenuously - that the city should forcibly inspect the restaurant again, or bulldoze it and jail the owner. Now you say the restaurant is, and I quote, ?one of the bright spots in the city?s retinue of quality cafes.? This, despite the fact that health inspectors have been waved off at gunpoint for nearly half a decade. Could you explain your change in position?

Ritter: I believe that the restaurant poses no danger to its neighbors.

Q. So your original remarks about hamburgers moving about under their own power were -

A. Look, it?s ridiculous to think that the cafe is capable of delivering expired chicken to the Upper East Side of Manhattan. They simply don?t have the capability.

Q. Well, you did note in 1998 that ?the Taste of Tikrit still possesses several bicycles which can deliver a hot entree within a 40-block radius.?

A. Is the cafe threatening to deliver the chicken? Is it threatening to put fliers under people?s windshield wipers? Look, we?re talking about some rickety bikes here; they can barely get ten blocks.

Q. Granted, perhaps. But many former employees note that the management has been buying spare bike parts on the black market for years, upgraded its fleet, and hid these bikes around Manhattan, ready to deliver on a moment?s notice.

A. There?s no evidence of that. We have the cafe in the box; the police regularly patrol the front and the back, and if the cafe does attempt to deliver, we?ll know.

Q. The owner sometimes steps out and shoots at the police as they pass by on patrol; is this cause to revoke their license?

A. Are any police dead? No. The system?s working.

Q. Some have worried that the cafe would give food to unlicensed street vendors, and they could deliver insufficiently refrigerated cole slaw throughout the city, and no one would know where they got it from. After all, your own report says that the restaurant had, in 1998, over 40 gallons of mayonnaise sitting under a heat lamp - and this mayo, by your own estimates, could cause food poisoning in thousands of people. Are you suggesting they have disposed of that mayonnaise?

A. I?m saying that we have to look at why people want to force a management change at the Taste of Tikrit, now. You have to look at what forced the expulsion of the restaurant inspectors in 1998. The city was essentially using the inspection process to spy on the owners, who they suspected of several murders.

Q. 175,327 murders to be specific.

A. I?m not here to quibble over numbers. The fact is, the management doesn?t trust the inspectors, and they?ve good reason.

Q. Just last week you actually went to the ?Taste of Tikrit,? and gave a speech at an employee?s meeting. You were also granted access to nearly half a million dollars provided by a friend of the management, in order to make a documentary on the restaurant-inspection procedure. Do you worry that this might compromise you in the eyes of some?

A. Let them say it to my face so I can kick their ass.

Q. Wouldn?t that require them to do a complete about-face?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. And you could show them how that?s done.

A. Yes, I - wait a minute. What do you mean by that?


attributed to this site.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Har Har Har. Just because Iraq has a few aging scud B missiles, everyone has their panties in a bunch.

Look up how many "friendly" countries are in range of his missiles. Ill give you a hint-- aside from a few Arab states, one.

PS- Saddam is a mean asswipe, not stupid nor suicidal.

 

[sandorski]

An Iraqi American? Oh my, must be Saddams terror cell.

 

[Aceshigh]

I can't believe I wasted 2 minutes of my life reading this thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

I watched Ritter on TV tonight. I can understand why he is hated. He has tremendous credentials, a patriotic ex marine who loves and served his country but whose personal moral integrity transcends even that loyalty. He rigorously maintains his moral integrity, a strict adherence to law and the principles of law over the insanity of American policy that corrupted the inspection process and allowed Iraq a justification to escape the inspection process that was vital to dismantling any Ws of MD they may have been hiding. He simply demanded that not only Iraq, but the US follow the law. He insisted that the US not be allowed to corrupt the process and quit when they did anyway. Patriots, real patriots who stand for truth and justice above national loyalty are not only rare, they are heroes of the highest order. They are the most dangerous of men because they constantly threaten the shallow with exposure. That is why they will always be attacked by smear campaign, tarnishing their integrity with irrelevancy because they cannot be challenged on the field of truth.

The lie about the 400000 he took from an Iraqi American (Take a good look at that term. Notice it was an American) is typical. He took no money from an Iraqi, the implication, he borrowed it to make his own film with his own content. It was a business deal and he has to pay back the loan.

 

[Kadarin]

etech: That's great stuff...

 

[AndrewR]

An Iraqi American? Oh my, must be Saddams terror cell.

Of course, responding without all the facts, as usual. The man in question is very closely tied to the government of Iraq and hosts yearly pro-Iraq conferences denouncing the "murderous" tactics of the U.S. and the U.N. against the "peace loving" government of Saddam. He also coordinated meetings between Ritter and various Iraqi government officials, up to and including Tariq Aziz. If you don't think that implies connection to the government, then I'm fairly certain you'd never believe there existed one.

You probably think that Tariq is a balanced and impartial voice in world affairs.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
An Iraqi American? Oh my, must be Saddams terror cell.

Of course, responding without all the facts, as usual. The man in question is very closely tied to the government of Iraq and hosts yearly pro-Iraq conferences denouncing the "murderous" tactics of the U.S. and the U.N. against the "peace loving" government of Saddam. He also coordinated meetings between Ritter and various Iraqi government officials, up to and including Tariq Aziz. If you don't think that implies connection to the government, then I'm fairly certain you'd never believe there existed one.

You probably think that Tariq is a balanced and impartial voice in world affairs.

You'll have to forgive me. I didn't even know who Scott Ritter was 2ish weeks ago until people started lambasting him with accusations of being paid off by Iraq. I don't even know who Tariq Aziz(I assume he is the Iraqi-American in question) is, but does his giving money to Ritter prove anything about Ritter? Does Tariq Aziz's anti-Americanism(the way the term "Anti-American" is thrown around, one has to wonder about the authenticity of the claim) make Ritter an "Anti-American"? Couldn't it be that Tariq Aziz sees Ritter as someone who can help his homeland avoid undue pain and suffering? Has that money affected Ritter's opinion in any way?

I saw Ritter on C-Span a couple days ago. He strike me as a man who doesn't let the media or government policy get in the way of principles and the truth as he sees it. A true individual who will fight for what is right despite the consequences.

 

[Red Dawn]

I thought Scott Ritter was that dude from 3's Company..DOH!!!!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AndrewR
An Iraqi American? Oh my, must be Saddams terror cell.

Of course, responding without all the facts, as usual. The man in question is very closely tied to the government of Iraq and hosts yearly pro-Iraq conferences denouncing the "murderous" tactics of the U.S. and the U.N. against the "peace loving" government of Saddam. He also coordinated meetings between Ritter and various Iraqi government officials, up to and including Tariq Aziz. If you don't think that implies connection to the government, then I'm fairly certain you'd never believe there existed one.

You probably think that Tariq is a balanced and impartial voice in world affairs.

You'll have to forgive me. I didn't even know who Scott Ritter was 2ish weeks ago until people started lambasting him with accusations of being paid off by Iraq. I don't even know who Tariq Aziz(I assume he is the Iraqi-American in question) is, but does his giving money to Ritter prove anything about Ritter? Does Tariq Aziz's anti-Americanism(the way the term "Anti-American" is thrown around, one has to wonder about the authenticity of the claim) make Ritter an "Anti-American"? Couldn't it be that Tariq Aziz sees Ritter as someone who can help his homeland avoid undue pain and suffering? Has that money affected Ritter's opinion in any way?

I saw Ritter on C-Span a couple days ago. He strike me as a man who doesn't let the media or government policy get in the way of principles and the truth as he sees it. A true individual who will fight for what is right despite the consequences.

If you know so little about the situation that you don't even know who Tariq Aziz is, then you're not qualified at all to comment.

 

[fluxquantum]

thought Scott Ritter was that dude from 3's Company..DOH!!!!

LMAO!! that what i thought too.

 

[UltraQuiet]

He rigorously maintains his moral integrity, a strict adherence to law and the principles of law over the insanity of American policy that corrupted the inspection process and allowed Iraq a justification to escape the inspection process that was vital to dismantling any Ws of MD they may have been hiding. He simply demanded that not only Iraq, but the US follow the law. He insisted that the US not be allowed to corrupt the process and quit when they did anyway. Patriots, real patriots who stand for truth and justice above national loyalty are not only rare, they are heroes of the highest order. They are the most dangerous of men because they constantly threaten the shallow with exposure. That is why they will always be attacked by smear campaign, tarnishing their integrity with irrelevancy because they cannot be challenged on the field of truth.

Well you've been sucked in hard. Scott Ritter has changed his story so many times I can't tell who he works for anymore. Depending on the day and who's listening it's either the gov't, the Iraquis or his book publisher. Some days I hear him speak and I agree and understand everything he says. The next day he says somehting completely different. It is readily apparent to me that Scott Ritters morals extend only to his wallet and his loyalty is to himself first.

BTW I didn't come to the above judgement lightly. Scott Ritter is a former Marine officer who served among other places Desert Storm. I have the highest respect and admiration for anyone who knowingly puts themselves in harms way. His changing attitudes towards Iraq however have me examining his motives.

 

[snooker]

Isn't Tariq Aziz the one who does all the Talking for Iraq. Wears the thick glasses?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AndrewR
An Iraqi American? Oh my, must be Saddams terror cell.

Of course, responding without all the facts, as usual. The man in question is very closely tied to the government of Iraq and hosts yearly pro-Iraq conferences denouncing the "murderous" tactics of the U.S. and the U.N. against the "peace loving" government of Saddam. He also coordinated meetings between Ritter and various Iraqi government officials, up to and including Tariq Aziz. If you don't think that implies connection to the government, then I'm fairly certain you'd never believe there existed one.

You probably think that Tariq is a balanced and impartial voice in world affairs.

You'll have to forgive me. I didn't even know who Scott Ritter was 2ish weeks ago until people started lambasting him with accusations of being paid off by Iraq. I don't even know who Tariq Aziz(I assume he is the Iraqi-American in question) is, but does his giving money to Ritter prove anything about Ritter? Does Tariq Aziz's anti-Americanism(the way the term "Anti-American" is thrown around, one has to wonder about the authenticity of the claim) make Ritter an "Anti-American"? Couldn't it be that Tariq Aziz sees Ritter as someone who can help his homeland avoid undue pain and suffering? Has that money affected Ritter's opinion in any way?

I saw Ritter on C-Span a couple days ago. He strike me as a man who doesn't let the media or government policy get in the way of principles and the truth as he sees it. A true individual who will fight for what is right despite the consequences.

If you know so little about the situation that you don't even know who Tariq Aziz is, then you're not qualified at all to comment.

Like I said, it doesn't matter who he is, we're talking about Scott Ritter.

 

[etech]

Testimony of Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector before the U.S. Senate September 3, 1998

MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs.

I think that says it all.


Moonbeam
You never did even try to explain why you are spreading the terrorists lies for them on this board. I really don't care what you think anymore.

 

[iamme]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I thought Scott Ritter was that dude from 3's Company..DOH!!!!

I thought it was John Ritter, at first glance, too.....

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: etech
Testimony of Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector before the U.S. Senate September 3, 1998

MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs.

I think that says it all.


Moonbeam
You never did even try to explain why you are spreading the terrorists lies for them on this board. I really don't care what you think anymore.

First we have the "American" taliban
now we have the "American" sellout...

I would like to hear what he says happened to the Iraqi's weapons programs after 4 years of total concealment and unhinderence by inspectors. Does he think old Hussein just stopped working on it, or does he think the missile fairy stopped by, took all the missiles and left them with a shiny nickle...

 

[Moonbeam]

My dearest, etech, you speak of this board as though it were your own and yet return after proclaiming it too shallow for your great mind and even deign to address me whose opinion you care nothing about. Your internal inconsistency is as apparent as your lack of functioning intelligence. First you slime a great American with your terrorist lies. Then you imply that I am the terrorist, I who supplied you with all the necessary data to discover that the inane implication you hallucinate in the Ritter quote says actually says nothing at all.

You see Ritter wants Iraq disarmed. He believes exactly as you quote. But he wants the legality of inspections that are not corrupted by either side. Bush wants war. That's all he wants. He wants Saddam dead and America in control of Iraq. He wants to establish a new American foreign policy. We will take you over because we can. It's a great policy for moral lepers. It's people that support that who are the sell outs although most probably they never had any thing to sell in the first place. You're not much of an American when you start calling the real patriots, those who feel that the purpose of open and free government is to welcome and air all points of view, to critique the government in order to improve it. Naturally for the small minded and the bigoted, light is an anathema.

 

[rickn]

I think he's an obnox. I mean he seems like a level-headed fella, but geez, all the yelling he does about how he is a patriotic american who's served his country yadda yadda yadd in every interview he does..who cares.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My dearest, etech, you speak of this board as though it were your own and yet return after proclaiming it too shallow for your great mind and even deign to address me whose opinion you care nothing about. Your internal inconsistency is as apparent as your lack of functioning intelligence. First you slime a great American with your terrorist lies. Then you imply that I am the terrorist, I who supplied you with all the necessary data to discover that the inane implication you hallucinate in the Ritter quote says actually says nothing at all.

You see Ritter wants Iraq disarmed. He believes exactly as you quote. But he wants the legality of inspections that are not corrupted by either side. Bush wants war. That's all he wants. He wants Saddam dead and America in control of Iraq. He wants to establish a new American foreign policy. We will take you over because we can. It's a great policy for moral lepers. It's people that support that who are the sell outs although most probably they never had any thing to sell in the first place. You're not much of an American when you start calling the real patriots, those who feel that the purpose of open and free government is to welcome and air all points of view, to critique the government in order to improve it. Naturally for the small minded and the bigoted, light is an anathema.

You know....I don't have a fvcking clue what is going on. I guess I avoid the news too much. All I know is that Bush wants to blow up Iraq.

What I do know is Moonbeam just stated his opinion. Guess what? Instead of attacking Moonbeam's ideas, etech started attacking Moonbeam. That shows that etech doesn't know how to discuss the issues at hand.

Just so you know Etech. Attack the ideas not the person. Otherwise you look foolish.

 

[guyver01]

Did anyone see the interview he gave on TBL on CNN a few days ago?? He was all up in Arthel Neville's face for saying "Iraqii-American" rather than "American-Iraqii" ... and he got all pissy because she pronounced it "er-ack" instead of "eye rack"

he's a dink

 

[rickn]

he's an idiot then. it is not pronounced "eye rack"

(for the r you gotta let your tongue roll on your upper mouth)

 

[JellyBaby]

Ritter's a good guy and you need only see him in an interview to make that determination. He has criticized the Bush administration (and Clinton's before that) thus he is a political enemy. The republicans will stop at no length to attempt to discredit him. They excel in that area. I'm just thankful the mainstream media gives Ritter a chance to defend himself, which he does admirably. And even taking all the flack, designed to keep him on the defensive so he's less harmful, he still gets the message out.

The $400,000 was a loan from an American born Iraqi that went to Ritter's production company to do a documentary. Ritter didn't pocket that loan. The FBI (or was it CIA?) investigated because of the loan's origin and Ritter told them if there was any evidence of wrongdoing he would decline the money. The FBI didn't find anything wrong.

He told it like at was 4 years ago. Today he's doing the same -- get inspectors back in so we know the truth of Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You see Ritter wants Iraq disarmed. He believes exactly as you quote. But he wants the legality of inspections that are not corrupted by either side. Bush wants war. That's all he wants. He wants Saddam dead and America in control of Iraq. He wants to establish a new American foreign policy.

You can't argue facts with people that refuse to listen. I thought Ritter was a sellout b/c I ASSUMED the posts here were accurate. Yeah, I know that pretty much proves my stupidity. I listened to the man call Saddam and his regime every name in the book. He endorsed full, unfettered inspections at the earliests opportunity b/c Saddam has a dangerous past and is dangerous now. What he was opposed to was US espionage couched as legitimate inspections and the war posture. He insisted that we should stick with the truth NOT innuendo b/c we lose credibility when we say things that clearly are conjecture if not outright lies.

How many MA or PhD work at the news networks? Few of these people can hold an intelligent conversation b/c they've got minimal understanding of the topics addressed. Any idiot can read a question but the talking monkeys at FOX and MSNBC lack the depth of knowledge to truly interrogate. The best they can do is repeat something somebody else said and when you bounce them back about the credibility of their source you get . . . "well are you saying they are lying", "well why would they lie", "well it's a reliable source".

Dave, show me EXACTLY how Ritter's position has changed. You are implying that he's changed viewpoints MULTIPLE times. I think that's inaccurate.