Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/13/2005 View Wed 10/12/2005 View Tue 10/11/2005 View Mon 10/10/2005 View Sun 10/09/2005 View Sat 10/08/2005 View Fri 10/07/2005
1
2005-10-13 Fifth Column
Bush, CIA Led Conspiracy to Oust Saddam, Book Alleges
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2005-10-13 10:10|| || Front Page|| [11124 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1  Iraq Confidential?
What's his next work going to be - Scott Does Little GirlsBaghdad?
Posted by Xbalanke 2005-10-13 11:38||   2005-10-13 11:38|| Front Page Top

#2 SOROS is in on this!!!
Posted by ARMYGUY 2005-10-13 11:42||   2005-10-13 11:42|| Front Page Top

#3 no doubt Scott's offered to do book signings at elementary schools across the nation
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-13 12:32||   2005-10-13 12:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Katie Couric will have to strap a sponge to her crotch to contain the gushing wetness when she does her orgasmic interview with Scottie-Pooh.
Posted by Hupeasing Jatch2629 2005-10-13 12:53||   2005-10-13 12:53|| Front Page Top

#5 President Bush was involved in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? Now tat's front page material!
Posted by WhiteCollarRedneck 2005-10-13 13:25||   2005-10-13 13:25|| Front Page Top

#6 You may disagree with Scott Ritter’s fiery rhetoric regarding the neo-con agenda. If you believe he is an attention whore looking to sell books…that’s fair. Hell, call him a crackpot and move on. But the insinuation that Scott Ritter is a Pedophile, a Left-Wing Operative, or a man on the take is nothing less the shameful.
Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-13 14:17||   2005-10-13 14:17|| Front Page Top

#7 But the insinuation that Scott Ritter is a Pedophile, a Left-Wing Operative, or a man on the take is nothing less the shameful.

How can the truth be "shameful" of anyone but Ritter?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-10-13 14:40|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-10-13 14:40|| Front Page Top

#8 
"How can the truth be "shameful" of anyone but Ritter?"

That's my point RC, correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am) but there seems to be alot of speculation and no facts to support the attributes assigned to Ritter. Typically disparaging remarks about the messenger without refuting the message amount to nothing more then a smear.
Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-13 15:03||   2005-10-13 15:03|| Front Page Top

#9 But the insinuation that Scott Ritter is a Pedophile, a Left-Wing Operative, or a man on the take is nothing less the shameful.

The police seem to think differently:

"The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News originally reported Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity. WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice in the spring of 2001, and that he has since undergone court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.
Sources also tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police.
The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl with whom he had chatted online. Instead, he reportedly was met by officers, who released him without a charge.
Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.
An attorney for Ritter confirmed that the ex-inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.
Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar."
Posted by Steve">Steve  2005-10-13 15:26||   2005-10-13 15:26|| Front Page Top

#10 The funding for Ritter's documentary -- $400,000-had been supplied by Iraqi-American businessman Shakir al Khafaji, who had used his connections with Saddam's regime and the United Nations Oil for Food Program to pocket $1.1 million, according to the Financial Times of London.

Just me, but I'd say that covers the "man on the take" angle...
Posted by tu3031 2005-10-13 15:33||   2005-10-13 15:33|| Front Page Top

#11 That's my point RC, correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am) but there seems to be alot of speculation and no facts to support the attributes assigned to Ritter. Typically disparaging remarks about the messenger without refuting the message amount to nothing more then a smear.

My point, DepotGuy, is proven in the above two comments. Ritter's a diddler and a fiddler.


("fiddler, v. intr... 3. To alter or falsify (accounts, for example) for dishonest gain.")
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-10-13 15:38|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-10-13 15:38|| Front Page Top

#12 and IMHO a traitor for $/blackmail
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-13 15:43||   2005-10-13 15:43|| Front Page Top

#13 The police seem to think differently:

The Schenectady Daily Gazette- The powerhouse of investivagtive journalism article is filled with alot of:

“Ritter allegedly”… “condition of anonymity”… “reportedly drove” “Sources also tell” “he reportedly was met by officers, who released him without a charge.” “ the source told the paper” “allegations that he was charged”

"court-ordered sex-offender counseling"? - For What charge?...What Conviction? Isn't that public information? Shouldn't he be on a sex offender list? Show me the police blotter.

I'm sorry I don't see any shred of evidence that he is a sex offender. But I see plenty of innuendo from unidentified sources.
Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-13 16:01||   2005-10-13 16:01|| Front Page Top

#14 There is no doubt Shakir al Khafaji is a crook. It’s also not a giant leap to think he had ulterior motives for funding Ritter’s film. Keep in mind Ritter’s 2000 documentary was about the ineffectiveness of the UN sanction Policy. I dare say by that time it was obvious Saddam was no longer “In the Box” and the sanctions were having the opposite intentions. Whether you agree with that or not, to imply guilt by association is one of the oldest propoganda ploys in the book. Try it...it's easy.

Tom Delay is charged with money laundering and is a good friend of Jack Abramoff
Jack Abramoff is a crook guilty of financial fraud..
Tom Delay must be guilty of money laundering.
Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-13 16:46||   2005-10-13 16:46|| Front Page Top

#15 Jesus, DepotGuy, what part of "court-ordered" is unclear?

Why do you think Ritter changed his mind?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-10-13 19:20|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-10-13 19:20|| Front Page Top

#16 "Jesus, DepotGuy, what part of "court-ordered" is unclear?"

Has Ritter been officially charged with a sex offense?
Has Ritter been officially convicted of a sex offense?
Did Ritter make a plea agreement without any formal charges?
Are court proceedings private in Albany, NY?

If the answer to the above questions are no, then how the hell can the court order Ritter to go to counseling?
Really...I'm not being sarcastic. Show me something other then heresay and I will gladly STFU.
Posted by DepotGuy 2005-10-13 20:03||   2005-10-13 20:03|| Front Page Top

#17 Is that you, Scott?
Posted by whitecollar redneck 2005-10-13 20:20||   2005-10-13 20:20|| Front Page Top

#18 Aye, Captain?
Posted by Lt. Scott 2005-10-13 20:27||   2005-10-13 20:27|| Front Page Top

#19 Frankly Depotguy - I don't really care WTF you think - you're ignoring the obvious - you're comments now get "Mike S" skepticism and skewing....

Spinal Tap: "It's such a fine line between clever and stupid"
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-13 20:41||   2005-10-13 20:41|| Front Page Top

#20 OK, Frank. Then prove he's wrong.
Posted by Throgum Elmoluse7582 2005-10-13 20:43||   2005-10-13 20:43|| Front Page Top

#21 courts have NO jurisdiction over innocent men. So, .....STFU
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-13 21:21||   2005-10-13 21:21|| Front Page Top

#22 Eloquent and persuasive.
Posted by Throgum Elmoluse7582 2005-10-13 21:23||   2005-10-13 21:23|| Front Page Top

23:38 Bomb-a-rama
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:27 Shilet Chogum1381
23:21 Alaska Paul
23:17 Mizzou Mafia
23:12 trailing wife
23:09 Ptah
23:07 trailing wife
23:00 Red Dog
22:45 Rafael
22:44 trailing wife
22:38 Frank G
22:35 Frank G
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:32 Paul Moloney
22:28 bbbustard
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 steve
22:15 doc
22:15 Phil Fraering
22:10 doc
22:10 gromky
21:51 Red Dog
21:51 Bobby









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com