Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ritter Speaks Out About the Right Wing Smear
"Do you think this was an attempt to silence you?"/// Ritter: "Again, I don't want to get into that, I think that is a question that maybe you journalists should be delving into more. "
Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has broken his silence about his 2001 arrest in an internet sex sting, giving his only local on-camera interview to Channel Six News.
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part I
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Scott Ritter: "I'd like nothing more than to be vocal opponent to this war, to being an affective voice to the anti-war movement. And that's one of the reasons why I am here today."
Darcy Wells: "Do you think you could be affective in speaking out against the war with Iraq now?"
Ritter: "Well again I will answer by noting that I was very affective in speaking out against the war in Iraq. That is with out debate. And these two issues have nothing to do with one another. In fact, if you think about one of the key points I bring out on the war in Iraq is the concept of the rule of law. And the concept of holding one accountable to the rule of law. I have been held accountable to the rule of law. The case was dismissed. And yet again those who likewise must abide by the rule of law and adhere to the requirement under law; not to discuss the case, they are not. You know I am a law abiding citizen. I haven't been in the past, I am now and I will be in the future. I am a good member of this community. I am a good American. I'd like to continue doing my patriotic duty of applying my knowledge and insights into a very critical issue. Yeah, I'll be a good voice to oppose this war. I'll be a good voice to talk objectively about the situation in Iraq. Nothing that transpired this week, nothing that's been spewed across the airwaves changes the fact that I am one of the top of the foremost experts on the issue of Iraq. I have the moral authority and the moral responsibility to continue talking about this issue."
Wells: "Do you think this was an attempt to silence you?"
Ritter: "Again, I don't want to get into that, I think that is a question that maybe you journalists should be delving into more. Frankly speaking, I am trying to hold together my family. Hold together my life. Reassert myself into the community and get back on to this important task. It did effectively silence me, it prevented me from going to Baghdad."
Wells: "Was that your decision or someone in Baghdad's decision?"
Ritter: "It was my decision. My responsible is for the larger issue of war and peace and my assessment of the situation based upon all that was transpiring in the media is that my going to Baghdad would bring this baggage with it and would detract from the larger issue of war and peace, and providing, opening up alternatives to war. So you know I need to disengage. I'd certainly like to clear this up and get back to the important task of is America going to war? What price will be paid? How can we avert war?"
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part II
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Wells: " So what is your next step? What's your plan now? You are speaking about this, do you move on immediately from here, can you move on from here?"
Ritter: "You know I don't know. I am going one day at a time. I am rebuilding my life as we speak. Its not that hard to rebuild. You know I have a wonderful family. My wife is solemnly behind me. My kids love me. My friends are with me. I have received hundreds of phone calls, hundreds of emails from supporters around the country and around the world. You know there is a tremendous constituent out there that is urging me to go forward. I hope I will be able to but the most important thing now is to bring stability to my family and to my community."
Wells: "Who do you think leaked this information?"
Ritter: "I don't know but whoever did should be held accountable. I mean I am held accountable to the rule of law. I was called forward, I stood before a judge. And I have you know adscititious adhere to my legal and moral responsibilities in terms of discussing the details of the case. Why others are not held to the same standard I don't know."
Wells: "You know an Assistant District Attorney was fired because of this case. How do you feel about that?"
Ritter: "I feel terrible about it but its not my fault. You know nothing happened here that's out of order. You know I am not a legal authority, you know I don't know what the facts are and what the numbers are. But again I'll restate I was arrested in June of 2001. I was charged with a class B misdemeanor. I was brought before a judge, I stood before a judge, my wife by my side. I was held accountable to the rule of law. That judge along with the Colonie police department, and the Assistant District Attorney and my lawyers reached a ACOD, a dismissal of the case and the case file was sealed. Those are the facts and I see nothing wrong with that."
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part III
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Wells: "But can you set the record straight, did you go online and talk to an underage girl concerning some type of sexual discussions?"
Ritter: "Again I must respect my legal and ethically responsibilities and not discuss issues pertaining to that case."
Wells: "You know when people see you and if you speak about Iraq in the future in the back of their minds they are going to be wondering, why what to know did Scott Ritter do this kind of this or didn't he, can you set that record straight?"
Ritter: "Well again, I have a legal and ethical responsibility not to discuss the details of the case. But what do we have going on here an extrajudicial proceeding. You know I have already stood before a judge, I've already been held accountable to the rule of law. The case was dismissed, the file was sealed. And I would expect everyone who adhere to the rule of law and who respect the rule of law to respect that. Again remember what the concept of an ACOD is, an ACOD removes the presumption of guilt and alimits the concept of this stigma arising from me having to respond to unstandabke allegations
Wells: "In your case it didn't work."
Ritter: "Well again not because of any wrong doing on my part. I have adhered to my responsibilities under the law, I have adhered the requirements both legal and ethical not to discuss the details of this case. I could only wish that everyone could did that because we won't be here. I'd be in Baghdad, we might have an opportunity to pursue an important initiative that could prevent war and lets remember lets put this in a larger perspective here, war and peace. We are talking about the potential deaths of thousands of Americans, the destabilization of the region in the world. And its a darn shame I am not focused on that issue right now."
Wells: "Have you broken the law, ever?"
Ritter: "Have I ever broken the law, have I gotten a speeding ticket? Yeah. Have I gotten a parking ticket? Absolutely. Let me say this what happened on June 15 was the first time I was arrested and the first time I was charged with any crime. But I want to reiterate that I stood before a judge, I was held accountable to the rule of law and that judge dismissed the case. And I think everybody should remember that."
Albany School Janitor Charged with Sex Abuse
The janitor for an Albany elementary school is behind bars, accused of abusing a four-year old girl! Police say 48-year-old Robert Buchanan lives in the apartment above his alleged victim on Clinton Street. That's where investigators say the girl's mother found her locked in a bathroom with Buchanan, visibly shaken. Police say it appears Buchanan somehow lured the girl upstairs. He's been suspended from his job at Philip Schuyler Elementary School. District Officials tell us they've never had a problem with him before.
Arrest in Greene County Fire
There's been an arrest in a fire that ripped through a trailer in Catskill. Tracey Finkle has been charged with second degree arson. A mother and her five children are homeless because of the fire. Police say Finkle is the girlfriend of the father of some of the children. There was apparently a conflict between her and the mother.
Self Defense Coach Accused of Sexual Abuse
He taught children a sport based on honor and tradition. But police say a local Tae Kwan Do coach was doing more than mentoring; accusing him of sexually abusing a teenager. Guilderland police arrested 39-year-old Carl Slater of Rotterdam on Monday afternoon after finding him in the back seat of a car with a 15 year old girl. The two were in the parking lot, with the car running, behind the Capital Northeast Tae Kwon Do, where Slater is a part-time instructor of junior students. After questioning Slater, police learned he'd been communicating with the girl in an AOL chat room since last fall. He used the screen names, "H.K. Corky" and "Apophiss." Police also confiscated 600 photographs of kiddie porn they say Slater downloaded on his home computer. Slater spent the night in jail and is now out on bail. Police are trying to find out if there are other victims because he had access to children at Tae Kwon Do, and at the Cumberland Farms store where he worked in Guilderland; you can call police at 356-1501.
Big Honor for Local College President
A local college president has something in common with Oprah Winfrey, Halle Berry, and Colin Powell. RPI president Shirley Ann Jackson has been named one of the 50 most inspiring African Americans. A book published by Essence magazine features African Americans who are breaking barriers in a number of fields, including politics, education and entertainment.
Saratoga Socialite Leaves Millions to Hospital
She was known for her dramatic entrance into Saratoga parties. But now, in her death, socialite Mollie Wilmot is getting noticed for her generosity toward a local hospital. Wilmot was the heiress of a department store fortune and died in September at the age of 78. In her will, she left three million dollars in cash to specific people, but wants the remainder to be split between Saratoga Hospital and a foundation in Florida. Lawyers don't know how much the hospital will get yet, but it will be in the millions. Wilmot lived in West Palm Beach and New York City but was treated at Saratoga Hospital during when she summered there. She gained national attention in 1984 when a Venezuelan freighter crashed into her Florida home. The hospital says this gift will be the largest in its history. Hospital officials say they will use part of Wilmot's donation for a 70 million dollar expansion project.
Commentary: Dan DiNicola on 'Roe v. Wade'
This commentary originally aired on the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6, the 30th anniversary of the landmark abortion ruling.
"I've had three encounters with women who have had abortions. In each case it was, 'I don't want the baby right now, I can't have it.' In each case the woman went into the procedure without one qualm of conscience. In each case, the effects were emotionally devastating. As in, 'Oh my god, what have I done?'
I'm not Mr. Churchgoer, but maybe it's the old fashioned Catholic boy deep down which impels me to have a hard time with abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger. At the same time, because I can't prove articles of faith beyond reasonable doubt, I believe, in the woman's right to choose, to govern her own body.
And if you believe abortion is a sin, then let her have her right to sin. To live with the consequences of her act freely chosen. Is it wrong to say 'Just because I believe in a woman's right to choose, it doesn't mean I have to agree with her choice?'
Again, I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't always agree with her choice. Can't we just leave it at that without calling a woman a murderer? Knowing that, like my three friends, many women who have abortions live forever with a pain worse than the hurt brought on by shouts and condemnations? If you happen to be a Christian, does it not make more sense to show so-called offending women love, rather than disdain?
Roe v. Wade does not command us to agree with abortion, but with freedom of choice. I ask you again, am I contradicting myself? Am I taking an immoral position, by saying we can believe in a woman's right to choice without agreeing with what she has chosen?"
Dan DiNicola
feedback [at] wrgb.com
These are the personal views of Dan DiNicola, and do not necessarily represent the views of WRGB-TV or Freedom Broadcasting.
Viewer Mail
Every Friday on Channel 6 News at Six, we dip into the mailbag to see what you think about what you see on Channel 6 News each week. Just send us an e-mail to feedback [at] wrgb.com or mail your comments to:
Feedback c/o WRGB-TV 1400 Balltown Road Niskayuna NY 12309
Please include your name and town if you want your letter to be on the air!
Entire Site © 2003, WRGB-TV6
Click here for advertising information.
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part I
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Scott Ritter: "I'd like nothing more than to be vocal opponent to this war, to being an affective voice to the anti-war movement. And that's one of the reasons why I am here today."
Darcy Wells: "Do you think you could be affective in speaking out against the war with Iraq now?"
Ritter: "Well again I will answer by noting that I was very affective in speaking out against the war in Iraq. That is with out debate. And these two issues have nothing to do with one another. In fact, if you think about one of the key points I bring out on the war in Iraq is the concept of the rule of law. And the concept of holding one accountable to the rule of law. I have been held accountable to the rule of law. The case was dismissed. And yet again those who likewise must abide by the rule of law and adhere to the requirement under law; not to discuss the case, they are not. You know I am a law abiding citizen. I haven't been in the past, I am now and I will be in the future. I am a good member of this community. I am a good American. I'd like to continue doing my patriotic duty of applying my knowledge and insights into a very critical issue. Yeah, I'll be a good voice to oppose this war. I'll be a good voice to talk objectively about the situation in Iraq. Nothing that transpired this week, nothing that's been spewed across the airwaves changes the fact that I am one of the top of the foremost experts on the issue of Iraq. I have the moral authority and the moral responsibility to continue talking about this issue."
Wells: "Do you think this was an attempt to silence you?"
Ritter: "Again, I don't want to get into that, I think that is a question that maybe you journalists should be delving into more. Frankly speaking, I am trying to hold together my family. Hold together my life. Reassert myself into the community and get back on to this important task. It did effectively silence me, it prevented me from going to Baghdad."
Wells: "Was that your decision or someone in Baghdad's decision?"
Ritter: "It was my decision. My responsible is for the larger issue of war and peace and my assessment of the situation based upon all that was transpiring in the media is that my going to Baghdad would bring this baggage with it and would detract from the larger issue of war and peace, and providing, opening up alternatives to war. So you know I need to disengage. I'd certainly like to clear this up and get back to the important task of is America going to war? What price will be paid? How can we avert war?"
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part II
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Wells: " So what is your next step? What's your plan now? You are speaking about this, do you move on immediately from here, can you move on from here?"
Ritter: "You know I don't know. I am going one day at a time. I am rebuilding my life as we speak. Its not that hard to rebuild. You know I have a wonderful family. My wife is solemnly behind me. My kids love me. My friends are with me. I have received hundreds of phone calls, hundreds of emails from supporters around the country and around the world. You know there is a tremendous constituent out there that is urging me to go forward. I hope I will be able to but the most important thing now is to bring stability to my family and to my community."
Wells: "Who do you think leaked this information?"
Ritter: "I don't know but whoever did should be held accountable. I mean I am held accountable to the rule of law. I was called forward, I stood before a judge. And I have you know adscititious adhere to my legal and moral responsibilities in terms of discussing the details of the case. Why others are not held to the same standard I don't know."
Wells: "You know an Assistant District Attorney was fired because of this case. How do you feel about that?"
Ritter: "I feel terrible about it but its not my fault. You know nothing happened here that's out of order. You know I am not a legal authority, you know I don't know what the facts are and what the numbers are. But again I'll restate I was arrested in June of 2001. I was charged with a class B misdemeanor. I was brought before a judge, I stood before a judge, my wife by my side. I was held accountable to the rule of law. That judge along with the Colonie police department, and the Assistant District Attorney and my lawyers reached a ACOD, a dismissal of the case and the case file was sealed. Those are the facts and I see nothing wrong with that."
Transcript of Ritter Interview, Part III
This is the transcript of Darcy Wells' interview with Scott Ritter from the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6.
Wells: "But can you set the record straight, did you go online and talk to an underage girl concerning some type of sexual discussions?"
Ritter: "Again I must respect my legal and ethically responsibilities and not discuss issues pertaining to that case."
Wells: "You know when people see you and if you speak about Iraq in the future in the back of their minds they are going to be wondering, why what to know did Scott Ritter do this kind of this or didn't he, can you set that record straight?"
Ritter: "Well again, I have a legal and ethical responsibility not to discuss the details of the case. But what do we have going on here an extrajudicial proceeding. You know I have already stood before a judge, I've already been held accountable to the rule of law. The case was dismissed, the file was sealed. And I would expect everyone who adhere to the rule of law and who respect the rule of law to respect that. Again remember what the concept of an ACOD is, an ACOD removes the presumption of guilt and alimits the concept of this stigma arising from me having to respond to unstandabke allegations
Wells: "In your case it didn't work."
Ritter: "Well again not because of any wrong doing on my part. I have adhered to my responsibilities under the law, I have adhered the requirements both legal and ethical not to discuss the details of this case. I could only wish that everyone could did that because we won't be here. I'd be in Baghdad, we might have an opportunity to pursue an important initiative that could prevent war and lets remember lets put this in a larger perspective here, war and peace. We are talking about the potential deaths of thousands of Americans, the destabilization of the region in the world. And its a darn shame I am not focused on that issue right now."
Wells: "Have you broken the law, ever?"
Ritter: "Have I ever broken the law, have I gotten a speeding ticket? Yeah. Have I gotten a parking ticket? Absolutely. Let me say this what happened on June 15 was the first time I was arrested and the first time I was charged with any crime. But I want to reiterate that I stood before a judge, I was held accountable to the rule of law and that judge dismissed the case. And I think everybody should remember that."
Albany School Janitor Charged with Sex Abuse
The janitor for an Albany elementary school is behind bars, accused of abusing a four-year old girl! Police say 48-year-old Robert Buchanan lives in the apartment above his alleged victim on Clinton Street. That's where investigators say the girl's mother found her locked in a bathroom with Buchanan, visibly shaken. Police say it appears Buchanan somehow lured the girl upstairs. He's been suspended from his job at Philip Schuyler Elementary School. District Officials tell us they've never had a problem with him before.
Arrest in Greene County Fire
There's been an arrest in a fire that ripped through a trailer in Catskill. Tracey Finkle has been charged with second degree arson. A mother and her five children are homeless because of the fire. Police say Finkle is the girlfriend of the father of some of the children. There was apparently a conflict between her and the mother.
Self Defense Coach Accused of Sexual Abuse
He taught children a sport based on honor and tradition. But police say a local Tae Kwan Do coach was doing more than mentoring; accusing him of sexually abusing a teenager. Guilderland police arrested 39-year-old Carl Slater of Rotterdam on Monday afternoon after finding him in the back seat of a car with a 15 year old girl. The two were in the parking lot, with the car running, behind the Capital Northeast Tae Kwon Do, where Slater is a part-time instructor of junior students. After questioning Slater, police learned he'd been communicating with the girl in an AOL chat room since last fall. He used the screen names, "H.K. Corky" and "Apophiss." Police also confiscated 600 photographs of kiddie porn they say Slater downloaded on his home computer. Slater spent the night in jail and is now out on bail. Police are trying to find out if there are other victims because he had access to children at Tae Kwon Do, and at the Cumberland Farms store where he worked in Guilderland; you can call police at 356-1501.
Big Honor for Local College President
A local college president has something in common with Oprah Winfrey, Halle Berry, and Colin Powell. RPI president Shirley Ann Jackson has been named one of the 50 most inspiring African Americans. A book published by Essence magazine features African Americans who are breaking barriers in a number of fields, including politics, education and entertainment.
Saratoga Socialite Leaves Millions to Hospital
She was known for her dramatic entrance into Saratoga parties. But now, in her death, socialite Mollie Wilmot is getting noticed for her generosity toward a local hospital. Wilmot was the heiress of a department store fortune and died in September at the age of 78. In her will, she left three million dollars in cash to specific people, but wants the remainder to be split between Saratoga Hospital and a foundation in Florida. Lawyers don't know how much the hospital will get yet, but it will be in the millions. Wilmot lived in West Palm Beach and New York City but was treated at Saratoga Hospital during when she summered there. She gained national attention in 1984 when a Venezuelan freighter crashed into her Florida home. The hospital says this gift will be the largest in its history. Hospital officials say they will use part of Wilmot's donation for a 70 million dollar expansion project.
Commentary: Dan DiNicola on 'Roe v. Wade'
This commentary originally aired on the Wednesday, January 22 edition of Channel Six News at 6, the 30th anniversary of the landmark abortion ruling.
"I've had three encounters with women who have had abortions. In each case it was, 'I don't want the baby right now, I can't have it.' In each case the woman went into the procedure without one qualm of conscience. In each case, the effects were emotionally devastating. As in, 'Oh my god, what have I done?'
I'm not Mr. Churchgoer, but maybe it's the old fashioned Catholic boy deep down which impels me to have a hard time with abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger. At the same time, because I can't prove articles of faith beyond reasonable doubt, I believe, in the woman's right to choose, to govern her own body.
And if you believe abortion is a sin, then let her have her right to sin. To live with the consequences of her act freely chosen. Is it wrong to say 'Just because I believe in a woman's right to choose, it doesn't mean I have to agree with her choice?'
Again, I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't always agree with her choice. Can't we just leave it at that without calling a woman a murderer? Knowing that, like my three friends, many women who have abortions live forever with a pain worse than the hurt brought on by shouts and condemnations? If you happen to be a Christian, does it not make more sense to show so-called offending women love, rather than disdain?
Roe v. Wade does not command us to agree with abortion, but with freedom of choice. I ask you again, am I contradicting myself? Am I taking an immoral position, by saying we can believe in a woman's right to choice without agreeing with what she has chosen?"
Dan DiNicola
feedback [at] wrgb.com
These are the personal views of Dan DiNicola, and do not necessarily represent the views of WRGB-TV or Freedom Broadcasting.
Viewer Mail
Every Friday on Channel 6 News at Six, we dip into the mailbag to see what you think about what you see on Channel 6 News each week. Just send us an e-mail to feedback [at] wrgb.com or mail your comments to:
Feedback c/o WRGB-TV 1400 Balltown Road Niskayuna NY 12309
Please include your name and town if you want your letter to be on the air!
Entire Site © 2003, WRGB-TV6
Click here for advertising information.
For more information:
http://www.wrgb.com/news/local/local_news....
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
well, mike got a little carried away and posted the whole damn day's news from that local station. sorry, comrades.
if you have QuickTime, you can follow the link and view the interview.
if you have QuickTime, you can follow the link and view the interview.
Ritter is prohibited from speaking directly about the case, but it's obvious that he's signaling to journalists that there's a story here, and not just about the "leaking" itself.
As Justin Raimondo notes (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html), it's likely high-level dirty tricks are on display.
So let's get cracking comrades! It's time to defend Ritter against the war mongers and DEMAND to know what's REALLY going on here. I'm no conspiracy monger, but it's obvious the War Party will stop at nothing--absolutely nothing--to achieve its aims.
The Scott Ritter Defense Militia is formed! All hands to the barricades!
As Justin Raimondo notes (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html), it's likely high-level dirty tricks are on display.
So let's get cracking comrades! It's time to defend Ritter against the war mongers and DEMAND to know what's REALLY going on here. I'm no conspiracy monger, but it's obvious the War Party will stop at nothing--absolutely nothing--to achieve its aims.
The Scott Ritter Defense Militia is formed! All hands to the barricades!
Oh, Mr Ritter again.
Funny how he has changed his tune since he was an inspector. He has flipped over completely. He didn't have his anti-war, anti-Administration opinions when he was still an inspector.
There were some of the younger inspectors that took Saddam up on his offer of a big Swiss bank account if only they would say they found nothing. I wonder if Mr Ritter is one that took him up on the offer?
Explains a lot, doesn't it? Suddenly, all the puzzle pieces fit together rather nicely.
Toad
Funny how he has changed his tune since he was an inspector. He has flipped over completely. He didn't have his anti-war, anti-Administration opinions when he was still an inspector.
There were some of the younger inspectors that took Saddam up on his offer of a big Swiss bank account if only they would say they found nothing. I wonder if Mr Ritter is one that took him up on the offer?
Explains a lot, doesn't it? Suddenly, all the puzzle pieces fit together rather nicely.
Toad
Ritter didn't flip-flop on his view of Iraq. He's always held extreme contempt for their hiding and games. What he flip-flopped on was his realization that most of the WMD were found and destroyed, that containment would work (which it is now being employed against N. Korea, among diplomatic efforts and in full demonstration of the bogus explanations coming from the Bush administration that attempt to justify Iraq, right on up to the hyperbolic Dr. Condi Rice editorial in the NYT today).
No, Mr. Toad. You're flat-out wrong.
Yes, Ritter may have had his butt halled in for deviant sex behavior. But that's a totally different issue from what is going on in U.S. foreign policy. The only flip-flop Ritter did was to change his view on how he saw U.S. foreign policy. He came to understand what the policy of regime change by any means and at any cost meant -- even in the face of an Iraq disarmed by 95 some-odd percent, even in the face of inspections that could have done even more disarmament if there were not sabotaged by spying nor artificial time constraints pursuant to objectives of total control over Iraq (the inspections did work).
Don't be a right-wing parrot. Free your mind. This is not a leftist issue. This is just a generic issue of a superpower taking care of it's geostrategic imperatives. It goes beyond left, right, Democrat and Republican frameworks.
Ritter is human. He may have been doing some slimy things re. internet chat rooms. But he went before a judge, and the case was dismissed for a lesser charge in a full legal process. The case was then sealed, and quite suspiciously, it comes back, out of no where exactly when it's of most strategic use for smear value. That stinks of the hand of orchestration.
No, Mr. Toad, the only flip-flop here is Ritter's understanding of U.S. objectives. Ritter constantly and consistently condemns Hussein as a maniacal, dangerous and evil dictator. But Ritter also understands that war should always be used as the last option, and that the U.S. today has chosen to use war as a primary option given that war has the side benefits of offering far more than just "regime change" via diplomacy or "disarmament" -- war offers renegotiation of oil exploration and production contracts and total control over the future of Iraq, including their vital water resources.
Mr. Toad, George W. Bush is an imperial bozo
Mr. Toad, Clinton was a conniving imperial hack
Both are a sad statement on an America that has long since abandoned the principles that are found in our long history, and as we build a police state and empire abroad, our republic dies on the vine.
Wake up. Don't be a hack. Free your mind.
No, Mr. Toad. You're flat-out wrong.
Yes, Ritter may have had his butt halled in for deviant sex behavior. But that's a totally different issue from what is going on in U.S. foreign policy. The only flip-flop Ritter did was to change his view on how he saw U.S. foreign policy. He came to understand what the policy of regime change by any means and at any cost meant -- even in the face of an Iraq disarmed by 95 some-odd percent, even in the face of inspections that could have done even more disarmament if there were not sabotaged by spying nor artificial time constraints pursuant to objectives of total control over Iraq (the inspections did work).
Don't be a right-wing parrot. Free your mind. This is not a leftist issue. This is just a generic issue of a superpower taking care of it's geostrategic imperatives. It goes beyond left, right, Democrat and Republican frameworks.
Ritter is human. He may have been doing some slimy things re. internet chat rooms. But he went before a judge, and the case was dismissed for a lesser charge in a full legal process. The case was then sealed, and quite suspiciously, it comes back, out of no where exactly when it's of most strategic use for smear value. That stinks of the hand of orchestration.
No, Mr. Toad, the only flip-flop here is Ritter's understanding of U.S. objectives. Ritter constantly and consistently condemns Hussein as a maniacal, dangerous and evil dictator. But Ritter also understands that war should always be used as the last option, and that the U.S. today has chosen to use war as a primary option given that war has the side benefits of offering far more than just "regime change" via diplomacy or "disarmament" -- war offers renegotiation of oil exploration and production contracts and total control over the future of Iraq, including their vital water resources.
Mr. Toad, George W. Bush is an imperial bozo
Mr. Toad, Clinton was a conniving imperial hack
Both are a sad statement on an America that has long since abandoned the principles that are found in our long history, and as we build a police state and empire abroad, our republic dies on the vine.
Wake up. Don't be a hack. Free your mind.
You'll be singing a different story next year when Ritter wins the Nobel Prize for speaking out against the war, and when the government goons who set up this smear are unmasked and brought to justice.
Well, a guy can dream.
Well, a guy can dream.
"those homos that call themselves the Republicans"
Not all the homos are republicans mikey, get a clue.
Not all the homos are republicans mikey, get a clue.
I think if you go back a ways to earlier posts, I am the REALToad, and you are the impostor, sir!
I don't recall having said anything about right, left, Republican, or Democrat.
I don't care about Ritter's scumbag behavior with little girls, although now that you bring it up, it does tend to impeach his character. I was wondering why we hadn't heard from him in a while.
War has been ANYTHING but a primary option. It has been since 1992 that we have put up with the lies, deceit, and non-compliance of the Iraqi dictator. There now are three UN resolutions at which he has thumbed his nose. He is by far the most dangerous lunatic in the Middle East, both to his neighbors, and to the US. And he supports terrorist perpetrators and their tactics in the Middle East, and has al-Qaeda ties. He has proven HIMSELF to have the imperialist mindset, not the US. If we were running out of oil from other parts of the world, and the supply was dramatically cut, I might buy the argument that oil is a significant factor contributing to US war plans. But it's just not significant. The oil from Iraqi fields is already getting out onto the world market, regardless of who buys it. I understand and agree with the concept that we don't want Saddam getting his grubby paws on the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. Fact is, with control of a majority of the world's supply of oil, he could throw a wrench into the world economy and the national security of many nations. We cannot allow him to do that. If he gets his hands on nuclear capability, or further develops his existing WMD's, he WILL accomplish the goal of threatening his neighbors, thereby threatening world security and economy.
Scott Ritter was not satisfied that the inspectors had found much of anything while he was there. Nor were his superiors. They were all convinced most of Saddam's WMD's were never found. Why is he now claiming it's all gone?
Look, inspections are ridiculous. It's like playing "Where's Waldo" in a country the size of California. The perspective is enormous, and finding these things with 200 inspectors is virtually impossible unless they get incredibly lucky.
And the whole point is that Saddam is in material breach anyway. We know what he has already. We just want him to declare and destroy it. He's still pretending he never had any.
No, he has had ample opportunity to come clean. He didn't think we were serious. We're coming to the doorstep and bringing the mother of all surprises. It's time to end this crap and put the Iraqi people out of their misery.
Sorry, Toad impostor, I'm not buying your irrational argument.
The REAL Toad
I don't recall having said anything about right, left, Republican, or Democrat.
I don't care about Ritter's scumbag behavior with little girls, although now that you bring it up, it does tend to impeach his character. I was wondering why we hadn't heard from him in a while.
War has been ANYTHING but a primary option. It has been since 1992 that we have put up with the lies, deceit, and non-compliance of the Iraqi dictator. There now are three UN resolutions at which he has thumbed his nose. He is by far the most dangerous lunatic in the Middle East, both to his neighbors, and to the US. And he supports terrorist perpetrators and their tactics in the Middle East, and has al-Qaeda ties. He has proven HIMSELF to have the imperialist mindset, not the US. If we were running out of oil from other parts of the world, and the supply was dramatically cut, I might buy the argument that oil is a significant factor contributing to US war plans. But it's just not significant. The oil from Iraqi fields is already getting out onto the world market, regardless of who buys it. I understand and agree with the concept that we don't want Saddam getting his grubby paws on the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. Fact is, with control of a majority of the world's supply of oil, he could throw a wrench into the world economy and the national security of many nations. We cannot allow him to do that. If he gets his hands on nuclear capability, or further develops his existing WMD's, he WILL accomplish the goal of threatening his neighbors, thereby threatening world security and economy.
Scott Ritter was not satisfied that the inspectors had found much of anything while he was there. Nor were his superiors. They were all convinced most of Saddam's WMD's were never found. Why is he now claiming it's all gone?
Look, inspections are ridiculous. It's like playing "Where's Waldo" in a country the size of California. The perspective is enormous, and finding these things with 200 inspectors is virtually impossible unless they get incredibly lucky.
And the whole point is that Saddam is in material breach anyway. We know what he has already. We just want him to declare and destroy it. He's still pretending he never had any.
No, he has had ample opportunity to come clean. He didn't think we were serious. We're coming to the doorstep and bringing the mother of all surprises. It's time to end this crap and put the Iraqi people out of their misery.
Sorry, Toad impostor, I'm not buying your irrational argument.
The REAL Toad
<homos that call themselves the Republican Guard>
after that, will you be "wiping out" the "homos" in America, too?
after that, will you be "wiping out" the "homos" in America, too?
Ritters' reputation is washed-up. Good riddance.
<a totalitarian turd floating in the soiled identity of the far left.>
Now that is just so sweet.. I will always cherish it.
And here's a little poem just for you:
"Holiday In Afghanistan"
apologies to the DKs
So you've been to school for a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl
Play ethnicky jazz to parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know how the Muslims feel the cold
And the casbah's got so much soul
It's time to taste what you most fear
RightThink will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear
Brace yourself, my dear
It's a holiday in Afghanistan
It's tough kid, but it's life
It's a holiday in Afghanistan
Don't forget to pack a wife
You're a star-belly sneech you suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
Well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
For a plate of beans a day
Slave for soldiers 'til you starve
Then you head will be skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son...
What you need, my son...
Is a holiday in Afghanistan
Where people dress in black
A holiday in Afghanistan
Where you'll kiss ass or crack
And it's a holiday in Afghanistan
Where you'll what you're told
A holiday in Afghanistan
Where the ruins got so much soul
Now that is just so sweet.. I will always cherish it.
And here's a little poem just for you:
"Holiday In Afghanistan"
apologies to the DKs
So you've been to school for a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl
Play ethnicky jazz to parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know how the Muslims feel the cold
And the casbah's got so much soul
It's time to taste what you most fear
RightThink will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear
Brace yourself, my dear
It's a holiday in Afghanistan
It's tough kid, but it's life
It's a holiday in Afghanistan
Don't forget to pack a wife
You're a star-belly sneech you suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
Well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
For a plate of beans a day
Slave for soldiers 'til you starve
Then you head will be skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son...
What you need, my son...
Is a holiday in Afghanistan
Where people dress in black
A holiday in Afghanistan
Where you'll kiss ass or crack
And it's a holiday in Afghanistan
Where you'll what you're told
A holiday in Afghanistan
Where the ruins got so much soul
Would you care to show us the court transcript?
It would seem that the war-profiteering smear artists who are attacking Ritter as being a pedophile could at least find out the correct definition of the word.
Pedophilia does not involve 16 year old girls. The term is used for sexual perversions with girls 13 years old or under by someone who is 15 years older.
In any event, there is no proof thaf Ritter did anything wrong. This is clearly a smear campaign, being used by the pro-Iraq war crowd who are only interested in killing a few hundred thousands Iraqui people
Peace
Pedophilia does not involve 16 year old girls. The term is used for sexual perversions with girls 13 years old or under by someone who is 15 years older.
In any event, there is no proof thaf Ritter did anything wrong. This is clearly a smear campaign, being used by the pro-Iraq war crowd who are only interested in killing a few hundred thousands Iraqui people
Peace
you know your doing someting right when they have to sink this low to defame you. Perhaps the antiwar movement is making a difference after all...
If you are an American you need to go back to civics class. Ritter was not found guilty of any crime and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. Government accuses someone of something so they must be guilty? If you think that, you might be happier in Stalinist Russia, not the (formerly?) free United States of America. People like you supported the USA Patriot Act (abrogation of the Constitution), and worse, without even asking for any evidence that civil liberties protections contributed to 9/11.
You (and I) have no idea why Ritter settled the case as he did without going to trial. I really shouldn't speculate on why he would do that but a number of obvious possibilities exist that have no implication of guilt whatsoever. One possibiity is that he didn't want the allegation and defending it to affect his work against Iraq, or his family. One condition of the settlement may have been the psych exam to determine whether he was a risk of sexual offense --- the state may do that in all cases as risk management (to avoid being sued if someone they decide not to prosecute then commits a sexual offense). Another condition of the settlement may have been that Ritter doesn't talk about the case.
This is all ridiculous --- I agree with Ritter on Iraq,so I'm defending him on an irrelevant issue, and wonder whether this is a smear campaign by operatives of the U.S. government or other interests wanting war with Iraq. People against Ritter on Iraq assume his guilt on these charges, and speculate that Iraqi intelligence must have blackmailed Ritter to "change his tune." (I don't think his positions are contradictory, but that's another issue.)
Fact is, no one knows what happened, and legally, nothing happened.
Stick to the issues. Even if you think Ritter's credibility would be placed in question if he were proved to have chased teenage girls, Ritter's credibility has not been placed in question because we don't know what happened.
Have fun Freepers with your gleeful mental masturbation on Ritter allegations. You and your Prez don't have squat to justify this war, and the whole world, including the awakening sheeple of the United States, know it.
My statement that a condition of settlement be that Ritter not talk about the case is probably wrong, as this is not a civil case. CNN's point may be well-taken
--- the file is sealed to protect Ritter not the state. This doesn't change my point though --- we don't know what happened and Ritter may have very good and legitimate reasons for not wanting to discuss the case, that have no implication of guilt.
--- the file is sealed to protect Ritter not the state. This doesn't change my point though --- we don't know what happened and Ritter may have very good and legitimate reasons for not wanting to discuss the case, that have no implication of guilt.
>Sources also told
Who were they and why should they be believed?
>Ritter could say
Isn’t he under a gag order?
Who were they and why should they be believed?
>Ritter could say
Isn’t he under a gag order?
some one tried several times to post a link to a kiddie porn site here?
I always did wonder why all the kids in Ritters neighborhood had sore butt holes.
you wrote:
>>plea, psych exam means nothing
by lawyer • Friday January 24, 2003 at 01:57 AM
If you are an American you need to go back to civics class. Ritter was not found guilty of any crime and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. Government accuses someone of something so they must be guilty? If you think that, you might be happier in Stalinist Russia, not the (formerly?) free United States of America. People like you supported the USA Patriot Act (abrogation of the Constitution), and worse, without even asking for any evidence that civil liberties protections contributed to 9/11.
You (and I) have no idea why Ritter settled the case as he did without going to trial. I really shouldn't speculate on why he would do that but a number of obvious possibilities exist that have no implication of guilt whatsoever. One possibiity is that he didn't want the allegation and defending it to affect his work against Iraq, or his family. One condition of the settlement may have been the psych exam to determine whether he was a risk of sexual offense --- the state may do that in all cases as risk management (to avoid being sued if someone they decide not to prosecute then commits a sexual offense). Another condition of the settlement may have been that Ritter doesn't talk about the case.
This is all ridiculous --- I agree with Ritter on Iraq,so I'm defending him on an irrelevant issue, and wonder whether this is a smear campaign by operatives of the U.S. government or other interests wanting war with Iraq. People against Ritter on Iraq assume his guilt on these charges, and speculate that Iraqi intelligence must have blackmailed Ritter to "change his tune." (I don't think his positions are contradictory, but that's another issue.)
Fact is, no one knows what happened, and legally, nothing happened. <<
Man, you are really grasping. If the person involved in this story were a Conservative or some other person that you didn't agree with, you would be calling for his head. Don't bother denying it...
Just keep excusing the pervs ....just keep splitting hairs..."he isn't a pedophile cuz she was over 13"
Your credibility has tanked....you have shown that you can make excuses for any kind of behavior as long as the pervs ideology is in alignment with your own..
I say..make Ritter the poster boy for the anti war movement....here is a sample slogan
Make love with minors
Not war with foreigners
I love you people...you are helping the other side so much more than anything they could accomplish....
>>plea, psych exam means nothing
by lawyer • Friday January 24, 2003 at 01:57 AM
If you are an American you need to go back to civics class. Ritter was not found guilty of any crime and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. Government accuses someone of something so they must be guilty? If you think that, you might be happier in Stalinist Russia, not the (formerly?) free United States of America. People like you supported the USA Patriot Act (abrogation of the Constitution), and worse, without even asking for any evidence that civil liberties protections contributed to 9/11.
You (and I) have no idea why Ritter settled the case as he did without going to trial. I really shouldn't speculate on why he would do that but a number of obvious possibilities exist that have no implication of guilt whatsoever. One possibiity is that he didn't want the allegation and defending it to affect his work against Iraq, or his family. One condition of the settlement may have been the psych exam to determine whether he was a risk of sexual offense --- the state may do that in all cases as risk management (to avoid being sued if someone they decide not to prosecute then commits a sexual offense). Another condition of the settlement may have been that Ritter doesn't talk about the case.
This is all ridiculous --- I agree with Ritter on Iraq,so I'm defending him on an irrelevant issue, and wonder whether this is a smear campaign by operatives of the U.S. government or other interests wanting war with Iraq. People against Ritter on Iraq assume his guilt on these charges, and speculate that Iraqi intelligence must have blackmailed Ritter to "change his tune." (I don't think his positions are contradictory, but that's another issue.)
Fact is, no one knows what happened, and legally, nothing happened. <<
Man, you are really grasping. If the person involved in this story were a Conservative or some other person that you didn't agree with, you would be calling for his head. Don't bother denying it...
Just keep excusing the pervs ....just keep splitting hairs..."he isn't a pedophile cuz she was over 13"
Your credibility has tanked....you have shown that you can make excuses for any kind of behavior as long as the pervs ideology is in alignment with your own..
I say..make Ritter the poster boy for the anti war movement....here is a sample slogan
Make love with minors
Not war with foreigners
I love you people...you are helping the other side so much more than anything they could accomplish....
Um, Scott Ritter IS a conservative - that is why he is so significant and gets so much press. CNN and the other news stations would never put a liberal or leftist inspector or objector to the war on. He is a conservative marine who used to be supportive of the first gulf war etc. and has much better first hand knowledge of what is going on over there.
you should go take a look at his book in a bookstore.
you should go take a look at his book in a bookstore.
Read The Franklin Cover-Up by John DeCamp
< If the person involved in this story were a Conservative or some other person that you didn't agree with, you would be calling for his head. Don't bother denying it... >
And YOU'D be defending him, you big stupid cheeseball.
Sheesh. The brains of a turnip.
And YOU'D be defending him, you big stupid cheeseball.
Sheesh. The brains of a turnip.
Turnips have feelings, too, you know.
<--- the file is sealed to protect Ritter not the state. >
how do we know that?
how do we know that?
I'm guessing he was framed.
Only phony statist conservatives support this war. The Republican Party of William Allen White Will Rise Again and Liquidate the Phony Neoconservatives Who Have Given the Right A Bad Name!
Hear me, Statist Neocons, and Repent!
Hear me, Statist Neocons, and Repent!
I have no evidence but sealed rumours, however, I think George Bush is not only a documented murderer, but a predatory peodophile?
What do you think of this, "Ritter is a pedophile"?
Are you a peodohpile too?
I think so....
What do you think of this, "Ritter is a pedophile"?
Are you a peodohpile too?
I think so....
"file sealed to protect Ritter not the state"
I don't know that. That was what CNN said to me and it made sense to me so I hedged on what I said earlier. Seems to me the state shouldn't be able to require sealing of file as condition of dismissal. In my state they often require the defendant to stipulate to probable cause for arrest so that the defendant can't sue them for false arrest. Was Ritter forced to do that? WE DON'T KNOW, which is what I was trying to say.
The guy who said I would attack Ritter if he were "conservative" (which he in fact is) is wrong. read what I said again.
Whoops, I meant that is what CNN said, not said to me.
I've seen no evindence supporting a case against Scott, but I'm absolutely convinced that the previous poster is a pedophile...
I have no doubt at all!
Certainly he seem more interested with inuendo regarding pursuit of orgasm, whereas the pursuit of murder by the court-appointed Enron administration doesn't bother him at all..
We saw the same obsessive behaviour in the Reich in pursuit of Clinton's penis, but when evidence surfaced demonstrating corporate crimes by the court-apppinted simian, the reich changed the subject...
changed the subject...
changed the subject...
changed the subject...
Divert / distract / dillute / pollute & smear - the Nazi way.
I have no doubt at all!
Certainly he seem more interested with inuendo regarding pursuit of orgasm, whereas the pursuit of murder by the court-appointed Enron administration doesn't bother him at all..
We saw the same obsessive behaviour in the Reich in pursuit of Clinton's penis, but when evidence surfaced demonstrating corporate crimes by the court-apppinted simian, the reich changed the subject...
changed the subject...
changed the subject...
changed the subject...
Divert / distract / dillute / pollute & smear - the Nazi way.
You blathered:
>>by mike • Friday January 24, 2003 at 03:12 AM
If the person involved in this story were a
And YOU'D be defending him, you big stupid cheeseball.
Sheesh. The brains of a turnip.<<
Typical marxist...attack me for something that i have never done but ignore the crap the marxist/liberal community is currently doing.
Cut the speculation and address the reality ,you moron...
another brave keyboard warrior that has the backbone of a jellyfish..pathetic...
>>by mike • Friday January 24, 2003 at 03:12 AM
If the person involved in this story were a
And YOU'D be defending him, you big stupid cheeseball.
Sheesh. The brains of a turnip.<<
Typical marxist...attack me for something that i have never done but ignore the crap the marxist/liberal community is currently doing.
Cut the speculation and address the reality ,you moron...
another brave keyboard warrior that has the backbone of a jellyfish..pathetic...
I would suggest that you are playing Israelese word spin games, buddy.
The sexual habits of Scott Ritter ---whatever they may be --have absolutely NOTHING to do with his arguments against KILLING PEOPLE.
Purstuit of orgasm and purstui of murder are seperate issues.
a) Whne I was sixteen, I had sex with a 33 yo
b) It was great sex
c) My pursuit of orgasm (Pleasure! = Evil in faith-based GOP speak) is totally unrelated to my pursuit of peace.
An ad hominem attack on character is a fallacy of LOGIC, and thus it is your violent and booldthirsty cognitive programming that requires updating for explanatory fitness.
I don't care what Scott does with his penis - it's not my business or yours.
Should we kill Iraqis because of Scott's penis?
The sexual habits of Scott Ritter ---whatever they may be --have absolutely NOTHING to do with his arguments against KILLING PEOPLE.
Purstuit of orgasm and purstui of murder are seperate issues.
a) Whne I was sixteen, I had sex with a 33 yo
b) It was great sex
c) My pursuit of orgasm (Pleasure! = Evil in faith-based GOP speak) is totally unrelated to my pursuit of peace.
An ad hominem attack on character is a fallacy of LOGIC, and thus it is your violent and booldthirsty cognitive programming that requires updating for explanatory fitness.
I don't care what Scott does with his penis - it's not my business or yours.
Should we kill Iraqis because of Scott's penis?
>>The sexual habits of Scott Ritter ---whatever they may be --have absolutely NOTHING to do with his arguments against KILLING PEOPLE. <<
I disagree...His taste for underage sexual partners leaves him vulnerable to blackmail...who knows what what other incidents have been noted and recorded by those that may wish to affect his viewpoints.
Right now, he has no credibility...his statements and views have been tainted by the spectre of extortion...
Hell, saddam might have photos of him with some 11 year old Iraqi girl...that wouldn't surprise me...but I know that you will be able to justify it...he was entrapped...set up...
I disagree...His taste for underage sexual partners leaves him vulnerable to blackmail...who knows what what other incidents have been noted and recorded by those that may wish to affect his viewpoints.
Right now, he has no credibility...his statements and views have been tainted by the spectre of extortion...
Hell, saddam might have photos of him with some 11 year old Iraqi girl...that wouldn't surprise me...but I know that you will be able to justify it...he was entrapped...set up...
Another logcal fallacy in the name of muder, Mike.
You sound like a threat to my species, and I feel it's time that we--the concerned sapien sapiens of terra--took preemptive action against you...
What is you opinion of this, Mike, you peodohpile tyrant?
You sound like a threat to my species, and I feel it's time that we--the concerned sapien sapiens of terra--took preemptive action against you...
What is you opinion of this, Mike, you peodohpile tyrant?
Ritter: You know I have already stood before a judge, I've already been held accountable to the rule of law. The case was dismissed, the file was sealed. And I would expect everyone who adhere to the rule of law and who respect the rule of law to respect that.
======
The propaganda office is closed, honest, says the Pentagon
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28692.php
...the public relations firm hired to help the office, Rendon Group, has been retained and will continue getting $100,000 a month "to do work for other Pentagon offices." Using the media, the Internet and secret operations, "General Worden envisions a broad mission," including, "‘black’ campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities ...." the New York Times reported. Secret Pentagon memos even said the office should "coerce" foreign journalists and "punish" those who "convey the wrong message."
The Pentagon and the CIA are barred by law from propaganda activities in the U.S., but critics of the OSI point out that disinformation planted with foreign press has often been published or broadcast by U.S. news organizations.
------
War Is Sell by Laura Miller
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/29441.php
The techniques being used to sell a war in Iraq are familiar PR strategies. The message is developed to resonate with the targeted audiences through the use of focus groups and other types of market research and media monitoring. The delivery of the message is tightly controlled. Relevant information flows to the media and the public through a limited number of well-trained messengers, including seemingly independent third parties.
------
The Pentagon's Information Warrior: Rendon to the Rescue by Laura Miller and Sheldon Rampton
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/27351.php
Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress whose...main tasks were to "gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996.
------
How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28662.php
US Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana - a conservative Democrat who supported the Gulf War - later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force against Hussein.72 Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress.
------
Pentagon Hires Image Firm to Explain Airstrikes to World by Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28690.php
The firm, the Rendon Group, has worked in the past for U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, which paid it to boost the image of the Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-backed group of Iraqis opposed to the rule of President Saddam Hussein. That effort in the mid-'90s ended with an investigation by the CIA's inspector general over how a reported $23 million was spent on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, current and former intelligence officials said.
------
U.S. Pays P.R. Guru to Make its Points - Firm's Pentagon work is lucrative, and top secret by Stephen J.Hedges
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28695.php
Rendon makes images, manipulates scenes and manages news. He advises politicians and spreads propaganda. Rendon and his public-relations firm, The Rendon Group, have many clients, but none bigger--or more loyal--than the U.S. government.
======
The propaganda office is closed, honest, says the Pentagon
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28692.php
...the public relations firm hired to help the office, Rendon Group, has been retained and will continue getting $100,000 a month "to do work for other Pentagon offices." Using the media, the Internet and secret operations, "General Worden envisions a broad mission," including, "‘black’ campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities ...." the New York Times reported. Secret Pentagon memos even said the office should "coerce" foreign journalists and "punish" those who "convey the wrong message."
The Pentagon and the CIA are barred by law from propaganda activities in the U.S., but critics of the OSI point out that disinformation planted with foreign press has often been published or broadcast by U.S. news organizations.
------
War Is Sell by Laura Miller
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/29441.php
The techniques being used to sell a war in Iraq are familiar PR strategies. The message is developed to resonate with the targeted audiences through the use of focus groups and other types of market research and media monitoring. The delivery of the message is tightly controlled. Relevant information flows to the media and the public through a limited number of well-trained messengers, including seemingly independent third parties.
------
The Pentagon's Information Warrior: Rendon to the Rescue by Laura Miller and Sheldon Rampton
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/27351.php
Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress whose...main tasks were to "gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996.
------
How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28662.php
US Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana - a conservative Democrat who supported the Gulf War - later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force against Hussein.72 Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress.
------
Pentagon Hires Image Firm to Explain Airstrikes to World by Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28690.php
The firm, the Rendon Group, has worked in the past for U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, which paid it to boost the image of the Iraqi National Congress, a U.S.-backed group of Iraqis opposed to the rule of President Saddam Hussein. That effort in the mid-'90s ended with an investigation by the CIA's inspector general over how a reported $23 million was spent on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, current and former intelligence officials said.
------
U.S. Pays P.R. Guru to Make its Points - Firm's Pentagon work is lucrative, and top secret by Stephen J.Hedges
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28695.php
Rendon makes images, manipulates scenes and manages news. He advises politicians and spreads propaganda. Rendon and his public-relations firm, The Rendon Group, have many clients, but none bigger--or more loyal--than the U.S. government.
Heritage Foundation-- Heritage Foundation (anti-gay, anti-labor, anti-civil liberties Big buisness)
Brilliant group that gave us, "contract with america" (Newt G.),
Homeland Security, Marriage Act, the "playbook" for Reagan Admin., star-wars..
They are superb at getting the "message" out.
Marketing -media saturation are their best policy tools.
There are plenty of examples of how Gore was cluttered with lousy media coverage spreading multiple lies, and misinformation during his campaign. (...As if Gore said he created the Internet.)
For some reason, sex remains to be the "taboo" act.
Now, let's see... what group would think a sex spin might discredit someone?
Brilliant group that gave us, "contract with america" (Newt G.),
Homeland Security, Marriage Act, the "playbook" for Reagan Admin., star-wars..
They are superb at getting the "message" out.
Marketing -media saturation are their best policy tools.
There are plenty of examples of how Gore was cluttered with lousy media coverage spreading multiple lies, and misinformation during his campaign. (...As if Gore said he created the Internet.)
For some reason, sex remains to be the "taboo" act.
Now, let's see... what group would think a sex spin might discredit someone?
Over the past year I've discovered that Gore actually has a few interesting things to say, as he did in his landmark speech on the infrastructure and social potential of the internet.
I wouldn't have discovered this without the internet.
His recent speeches on media ownership are worth finding and reading.
</aside>
I wouldn't have discovered this without the internet.
His recent speeches on media ownership are worth finding and reading.
</aside>
If he didn't do what is reported, why isn't he calling it all a bunch of lies?
He did it. He's going to pay the price in ways he never imagined. Tough.
A lot of interesting rebuttals have been "hidden" from this string, mainly pointing how how Ritter's ability to be objective has been compromised. I strongly suggest all readers find their way to reading the "hidden" comments that were made here. No bad language. No dirty pictures. Just info that blows those defending Ritter out of the water. Damaging responses convieniently "hidden". Hmmmmm.
He did it. He's going to pay the price in ways he never imagined. Tough.
A lot of interesting rebuttals have been "hidden" from this string, mainly pointing how how Ritter's ability to be objective has been compromised. I strongly suggest all readers find their way to reading the "hidden" comments that were made here. No bad language. No dirty pictures. Just info that blows those defending Ritter out of the water. Damaging responses convieniently "hidden". Hmmmmm.
Says it all. Now let's move on.
If this were an individual who was very outspoken pro-war, you and others would be jumping all over this. You wouldn't be saying "The case was dismissed". You know it. I know it. Setting aside this case for a moment, should a world of anarchy ever come to pass, will you and others like you continue to hold this double standard? Seeing you hold double standards now, why should I believe it would be different then?
>Who do you like in the third at Pimlico tomorrow?
Who's running?
Guy, I don't have to be psychic. I've been here long enough. I know better. I'm not interested in playing games. I sincerely want to know your answer.
Who's running?
Guy, I don't have to be psychic. I've been here long enough. I know better. I'm not interested in playing games. I sincerely want to know your answer.
So to answer my question, I take it in a world of anarchy, double standards would continue to exist. That's all I needed to know.
See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.htm
It very bad form. Please, at least try to conform to the standards of basic logic. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.htm
It very bad form. Please, at least try to conform to the standards of basic logic. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish.
Then answer the question.
If Ritter were pro-war, I know the very people who are crying foul on this site under the current circumstances would be the same ones who would be using this against him. That's not even debatable.
You said "The case was dismissed. Period. End of story. Says it all. Now let's move on." That's something that, were the roles reversed, I don't believe you would have typed. You'll say it given these circumstances, but I don't believe you would have said it if Ritter was pro-war. That's a double standard.
So answer the question. And quit jumping around. Here it is again:
Setting aside this case for a moment, should a world of anarchy ever come to pass, will you and others like you continue to hold this double standard? Seeing you hold double standards now, why should I believe it would be different then?
---------------
Here's two possible answers:
1) You are mistaken. I would say the same thing I did if Ritter were pro-war.
2) Since this issue has undermined Ritter, and Ritter speaks out against war which I personally like him doing, then the subject of his arrest, etc... should not be considered.
----------------------
You know, if you just don't like this being an issue because it's damaging to Ritter, yet you'd willingly allow it to happen here to someone else with whom you disagree who had similar circumstances happen to them made public, just say so. Nothing wrong with admitting that. It's a double standard, but there's a lot of double standards in politics.
If Ritter were pro-war, I know the very people who are crying foul on this site under the current circumstances would be the same ones who would be using this against him. That's not even debatable.
You said "The case was dismissed. Period. End of story. Says it all. Now let's move on." That's something that, were the roles reversed, I don't believe you would have typed. You'll say it given these circumstances, but I don't believe you would have said it if Ritter was pro-war. That's a double standard.
So answer the question. And quit jumping around. Here it is again:
Setting aside this case for a moment, should a world of anarchy ever come to pass, will you and others like you continue to hold this double standard? Seeing you hold double standards now, why should I believe it would be different then?
---------------
Here's two possible answers:
1) You are mistaken. I would say the same thing I did if Ritter were pro-war.
2) Since this issue has undermined Ritter, and Ritter speaks out against war which I personally like him doing, then the subject of his arrest, etc... should not be considered.
----------------------
You know, if you just don't like this being an issue because it's damaging to Ritter, yet you'd willingly allow it to happen here to someone else with whom you disagree who had similar circumstances happen to them made public, just say so. Nothing wrong with admitting that. It's a double standard, but there's a lot of double standards in politics.
Where are these 'hidden posts"? Tell us how to view them.
Where are these 'hidden posts"? Tell us how to view them.
They are racist, sexist, homophobic, pornographic, etc.
No, we will not let you see them. We refuse to allow our site to be a platform for the display of that kind of crap. If you want to see crap, go somewhere else. There is no shortage of crap on the net. It's just not here, that's all.
No, we will not let you see them. We refuse to allow our site to be a platform for the display of that kind of crap. If you want to see crap, go somewhere else. There is no shortage of crap on the net. It's just not here, that's all.
>How do you know?
Been here too long, guy. I believe it cause I've seen it happen. You have too, Once again, that's not debatable. Let's get past that to the question.
Maybe I could rephare:
If Ritter was pro-war, and the same thing were revealed about him, would you have typed what you did about needing to "move on"?
That should be easy enough to answer. A simple "yes" or "no" at this point will do.
Been here too long, guy. I believe it cause I've seen it happen. You have too, Once again, that's not debatable. Let's get past that to the question.
Maybe I could rephare:
If Ritter was pro-war, and the same thing were revealed about him, would you have typed what you did about needing to "move on"?
That should be easy enough to answer. A simple "yes" or "no" at this point will do.
Age of consent laws are not meant to opress minors and keep them from having sex you idiot. They are meant to keep people like me from preying upon your children.
Even a pedophile knows that.
Even a pedophile knows that.
Who knows if this charge is real..
I'm guessing its not by the way the court and press has dealt with it, but if this really is a government setup it is one of the scarier ones as of late. It means the FBI is going back to Nixon era tactics and many others will get caught in the new COINTELPRO net...
How did Ritter get setup? Perhaps its real and they were digging to get dirt, but then why is it that he had the charges dropped? Maybe it was a setup in terms of someone sending him an email with a link and him clicking on it and that was it (unintentional download) or perhaps it was a complete setup with no real truth...
In any case, it is one of the scarier events as of late since if it is a political setup it required multiple agencies etc... Its more on line with what one expects from Mugabe or Hussein than a US leader... but the US is heading in that direction so...
I'm guessing its not by the way the court and press has dealt with it, but if this really is a government setup it is one of the scarier ones as of late. It means the FBI is going back to Nixon era tactics and many others will get caught in the new COINTELPRO net...
How did Ritter get setup? Perhaps its real and they were digging to get dirt, but then why is it that he had the charges dropped? Maybe it was a setup in terms of someone sending him an email with a link and him clicking on it and that was it (unintentional download) or perhaps it was a complete setup with no real truth...
In any case, it is one of the scarier events as of late since if it is a political setup it required multiple agencies etc... Its more on line with what one expects from Mugabe or Hussein than a US leader... but the US is heading in that direction so...
>Hidden comments are hidden for a reason.
by one of the editors • Friday January 24, 2003 at 05:20 PM
They are racist, sexist, homophobic, pornographic, etc.
None of the posting you hid were any of these things. They were, however, very damaging to you position. Typical.
by one of the editors • Friday January 24, 2003 at 05:20 PM
They are racist, sexist, homophobic, pornographic, etc.
None of the posting you hid were any of these things. They were, however, very damaging to you position. Typical.
This reminds me of when the perversion issue was at it's height with the Clinton cigar scene. I saved the original Chronicle that ran that story - how idiotic it was to be broadcasting details of anyone's sex in full page sections of the paper . . . it'll be a collectors item in another decade. What lowlife the Chronicle was for running that, and all the other mouthpiece media.
People like Clinton and Ritter are subject to being blackmailed, else their little secrets might become public. That's where the danger lies. It's not the sex. It's how the knowledge of their sexual adventures can be used to blackmail them.
You're pushing for #6 on the LOSER thing, aren't you?
You're pushing for #6 on the LOSER thing, aren't you?
War crimes? That's thinking like an ararchist or a leftist. Humans have evolved beyond that.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30648
Baghdad pressuring Ritter?
Wolfowitz says Baghdad has history of blackmailing weapons inspectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 23, 2003
8:30 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significance of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter's arrest, allegedly in a police sex-sting operation a year and a half ago, was underscored today when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told of Baghdad's use of personal information to intimidate the inspectors.
Ritter – who confirmed yesterday that he was arrested in June 2001 but refused to give details – has dramatically reversed his position on Iraq's weapons threat and become an outspoken critic of the U.S., telling WND last week that President Bush should be impeached for his policy toward Baghdad.
"In the past, Iraq did not hesitate to use pressure tactics to obtain information about the inspectors," Wolfowitz said today in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Noting that often the pressure was "quite crude," Wolfowitz said that during the previous inspection period in the 1990s, "one inspector was reportedly filmed in a compromising situation and blackmailed."
Ritter served during this period under the auspices of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dave Lapan told WND today he would seek further elaboration from Wolfowitz concerning his remarks about the inspectors.
The deputy defense chief said in his speech this afternoon that sometimes Iraq's pressure on the inspectors was subtler.
Wolfowitz said, "Richard Spertzel, a former UNSCOM specialist in biological warfare, recalled the case of an Iraqi official coyly asking a new member of his team: 'How far is it from Salt Lake City to Minneapolis?' Having moved from Salt Lake City to Minneapolis just days prior to her arrival in Iraq, she was unnerved by the comment, according to Spertzel."
More recently, according to Wolfowitz, "Iraq has again begun referring to the inspectors as spies, clearly hoping to make them uncomfortable at best, and afraid at worst, and intimidate Iraqis from interacting with the inspectors."
Last December, it was reported that the State Department and U.N. – without any background check – selected a munitions expert for the inspection team who had no specialized scientific degree and a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs.
'Evolving' assessment
Ritter said in a Nov. 24, 2002, New York Times magazine feature that he has "evolved" in his assessment of Saddam Hussein's capability of threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees on Sept. 3, 1998 – just eight days after resigning as chief weapons inspector – Ritter affirmed that UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons. All Baghdad lacked, Ritter confirmed, was the fissile material.
Ritter said in that 1998 testimony that if Iraq were to reconstruct its old program for producing fissile material, it could have a bomb in several years.
He said he resigned because he felt "Iraq remained insufficiently disarmed and ready to restart its nuclear and biological weapons programs."
Now, Ritter says he would ''be surprised if there is anything in Iraq worth finding,'' maintaining that U.N. inspection efforts in the 1990s have forced Iraq to dispense with 90 to 95 percent of its deadliest weapons, meaning that Saddam is ''fundamentally disarmed.''
Wolfowitz claimed today that Iraq has not destroyed its chemical and biological arsenal and is working hard to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors, he said, treating "disarmament like a game of hide and seek – or, as Secretary of State [Colin] Powell has called it, 'rope-a-dope in the desert.'"
Ritter's public turnabout came just a few months after his Senate testimony, when on Dec. 16, 1998, he unexpectedly criticized Operation Desert Fox, a four-day U.S.-British bombing operation, for not having the approval of the U.N. Security Council.
Last September, Ritter made a speech before the Iraqi National Assembly in Baghdad in which he said his country "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls to remove Saddam.
A leading Iraq observer, Laurie Mylroie, who also serves as a Defense Department consultant, told WND that the best explanation for Ritter's reversal that she has heard is that, after he resigned and spoke out on Saddam's threat before the Senate, the Clinton administration turned on him.
"They sicced the FBI on him, and he just got so mad that he turned against the U.S., and his ego just won't let him see what he's doing," said Mylroie, publisher of Iraq News, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America."
CBS News reported on the day Ritter resigned that the FBI was investigating him for revealing classified intelligence to Israel. The probe resulted in no charges.
"The strange thing is, that until Ritter resigned, no one could talk about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were," Mylroie noted.
"Everything had been politically spun," she explained, "Clinton was ignoring the issue, [presidential candidate] Bob Dole didn't want to deal with it because he was afraid, and rightly so, that Clinton would bring up a very embarrassing trip he made, and things he said, in Baghdad in the early 1990s."
Mylroie's book, "Study of Revenge," makes a well-documented case for Saddam's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and gives evidence of Iraq's support of al-Qaida in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.
Recent revelations
Reports of Ritter's June 2001 arrest in upstate New York began surfacing just one week ago.
During an appearance last night on "CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown," Ritter admitted he was arrested but evaded questions dealing with reports he was caught in a police sex-sting operation, citing legal counsel. He questioned the timing of the revelations as he canceled a trip to Iraq due to this "distraction."
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 but who turned out to be an undercover police investigator.
WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, reported 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 told the Albany Times Union that Ritter had two run-ins with police.
The first occurred in April 2001, as he reportedly drove to a Colonie, N.Y., 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.
Baghdad pressuring Ritter?
Wolfowitz says Baghdad has history of blackmailing weapons inspectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 23, 2003
8:30 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significance of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter's arrest, allegedly in a police sex-sting operation a year and a half ago, was underscored today when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told of Baghdad's use of personal information to intimidate the inspectors.
Ritter – who confirmed yesterday that he was arrested in June 2001 but refused to give details – has dramatically reversed his position on Iraq's weapons threat and become an outspoken critic of the U.S., telling WND last week that President Bush should be impeached for his policy toward Baghdad.
"In the past, Iraq did not hesitate to use pressure tactics to obtain information about the inspectors," Wolfowitz said today in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Noting that often the pressure was "quite crude," Wolfowitz said that during the previous inspection period in the 1990s, "one inspector was reportedly filmed in a compromising situation and blackmailed."
Ritter served during this period under the auspices of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dave Lapan told WND today he would seek further elaboration from Wolfowitz concerning his remarks about the inspectors.
The deputy defense chief said in his speech this afternoon that sometimes Iraq's pressure on the inspectors was subtler.
Wolfowitz said, "Richard Spertzel, a former UNSCOM specialist in biological warfare, recalled the case of an Iraqi official coyly asking a new member of his team: 'How far is it from Salt Lake City to Minneapolis?' Having moved from Salt Lake City to Minneapolis just days prior to her arrival in Iraq, she was unnerved by the comment, according to Spertzel."
More recently, according to Wolfowitz, "Iraq has again begun referring to the inspectors as spies, clearly hoping to make them uncomfortable at best, and afraid at worst, and intimidate Iraqis from interacting with the inspectors."
Last December, it was reported that the State Department and U.N. – without any background check – selected a munitions expert for the inspection team who had no specialized scientific degree and a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs.
'Evolving' assessment
Ritter said in a Nov. 24, 2002, New York Times magazine feature that he has "evolved" in his assessment of Saddam Hussein's capability of threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees on Sept. 3, 1998 – just eight days after resigning as chief weapons inspector – Ritter affirmed that UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons. All Baghdad lacked, Ritter confirmed, was the fissile material.
Ritter said in that 1998 testimony that if Iraq were to reconstruct its old program for producing fissile material, it could have a bomb in several years.
He said he resigned because he felt "Iraq remained insufficiently disarmed and ready to restart its nuclear and biological weapons programs."
Now, Ritter says he would ''be surprised if there is anything in Iraq worth finding,'' maintaining that U.N. inspection efforts in the 1990s have forced Iraq to dispense with 90 to 95 percent of its deadliest weapons, meaning that Saddam is ''fundamentally disarmed.''
Wolfowitz claimed today that Iraq has not destroyed its chemical and biological arsenal and is working hard to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors, he said, treating "disarmament like a game of hide and seek – or, as Secretary of State [Colin] Powell has called it, 'rope-a-dope in the desert.'"
Ritter's public turnabout came just a few months after his Senate testimony, when on Dec. 16, 1998, he unexpectedly criticized Operation Desert Fox, a four-day U.S.-British bombing operation, for not having the approval of the U.N. Security Council.
Last September, Ritter made a speech before the Iraqi National Assembly in Baghdad in which he said his country "seems to be on the verge of making a historical mistake" in its calls to remove Saddam.
A leading Iraq observer, Laurie Mylroie, who also serves as a Defense Department consultant, told WND that the best explanation for Ritter's reversal that she has heard is that, after he resigned and spoke out on Saddam's threat before the Senate, the Clinton administration turned on him.
"They sicced the FBI on him, and he just got so mad that he turned against the U.S., and his ego just won't let him see what he's doing," said Mylroie, publisher of Iraq News, adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America."
CBS News reported on the day Ritter resigned that the FBI was investigating him for revealing classified intelligence to Israel. The probe resulted in no charges.
"The strange thing is, that until Ritter resigned, no one could talk about how dangerous Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were," Mylroie noted.
"Everything had been politically spun," she explained, "Clinton was ignoring the issue, [presidential candidate] Bob Dole didn't want to deal with it because he was afraid, and rightly so, that Clinton would bring up a very embarrassing trip he made, and things he said, in Baghdad in the early 1990s."
Mylroie's book, "Study of Revenge," makes a well-documented case for Saddam's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and gives evidence of Iraq's support of al-Qaida in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack.
Recent revelations
Reports of Ritter's June 2001 arrest in upstate New York began surfacing just one week ago.
During an appearance last night on "CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown," Ritter admitted he was arrested but evaded questions dealing with reports he was caught in a police sex-sting operation, citing legal counsel. He questioned the timing of the revelations as he canceled a trip to Iraq due to this "distraction."
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 but who turned out to be an undercover police investigator.
WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, reported 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 told the Albany Times Union that Ritter had two run-ins with police.
The first occurred in April 2001, as he reportedly drove to a Colonie, N.Y., 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.
the snake charmer. It might have been more dangerous for him to stay in office any longer than the bumbling moron is, because no one was filling the streets with signs of him dressed like Hitler. All anyone cared about was sex.
Ritter and a sixteen year old? Well, if you didn't see this coming you're a lost cause anyway. I predict the next revelation will be that his wife is leaving him and the media will turn it into a daily soap opera of family break-up. Or better, that he was molested by a priest as a child! Great news!
He's doing exactly what he should be doing as far as how he's handling it. Good for him. Everyone makes mistakes. He went before a judge.
What we should really be asking is why the real convicted criminals, pardoned by Bush One, are appointed to the top levels of our government led by Bush Moron . . . All Ritter is doing is testifying. He isn't making policy decisions for the entire nation. Idiots.
Ritter and a sixteen year old? Well, if you didn't see this coming you're a lost cause anyway. I predict the next revelation will be that his wife is leaving him and the media will turn it into a daily soap opera of family break-up. Or better, that he was molested by a priest as a child! Great news!
He's doing exactly what he should be doing as far as how he's handling it. Good for him. Everyone makes mistakes. He went before a judge.
What we should really be asking is why the real convicted criminals, pardoned by Bush One, are appointed to the top levels of our government led by Bush Moron . . . All Ritter is doing is testifying. He isn't making policy decisions for the entire nation. Idiots.
worldnetdaily as a real source of journalism? Whip me, beat me. tie me
up and tell me the lies you have uncovered.
“real news” for real men. Right. Ha!
According to this article, Wolfowitz is part of an informed circle.
Perfect. Yep. Neat-o.
Heritage Foundation playbook?
Ritter is a spy/traitor and into sex with minors(?).... But no reputable news group is covering the “breaking story” that Ritter is blackmailed by Iraq (ie spying for them)?
Right now, there is a former US Sgt. Major that might be executed for spying, and I am supposed to believe Ritter is doing Iraqi counterintelligence work?
up and tell me the lies you have uncovered.
“real news” for real men. Right. Ha!
According to this article, Wolfowitz is part of an informed circle.
Perfect. Yep. Neat-o.
Heritage Foundation playbook?
Ritter is a spy/traitor and into sex with minors(?).... But no reputable news group is covering the “breaking story” that Ritter is blackmailed by Iraq (ie spying for them)?
Right now, there is a former US Sgt. Major that might be executed for spying, and I am supposed to believe Ritter is doing Iraqi counterintelligence work?
to be fair, worldnetdaily has been publishing a lot of conservative anti-war stuff, in addition to the usual lunacy. the right can't even keep its own troops in line.
<Thanks for enabling me nessie>
That's not what he's saying, cheeseball. Drug laws actually make it EASIER for kids to get drugs; and age of consent laws, while essential to some degree in my view, do little to deter predators.
That's not what he's saying, cheeseball. Drug laws actually make it EASIER for kids to get drugs; and age of consent laws, while essential to some degree in my view, do little to deter predators.
Thanks for all the comments on this and other topics - until recently I was under apparently misguided impression that such innane, hateful opinions were possible only in my native Slovakia. Where do you guys and girls get all that venom, considering the lack
of facts and any understanding or even any incling of the history.
Ciao - I promise not to visit this site again - must be the Frisco air...
of facts and any understanding or even any incling of the history.
Ciao - I promise not to visit this site again - must be the Frisco air...
Please explain that logic to me.
<"Drug laws make it easier for kids to get drugs">
If I'm a 15 year old kid, and I want to buy beer, I have to find someone older to buy it for me. This is doable, but not always as easy as it sounds.
However, if I am a 15 year old kid and i want to buy pot, i simply find a kid at school who's selling it and i buy it from him. Because it's a completely unregulated black market, there are no controls on how and where people buy it.
If I'm a 15 year old kid, and I want to buy beer, I have to find someone older to buy it for me. This is doable, but not always as easy as it sounds.
However, if I am a 15 year old kid and i want to buy pot, i simply find a kid at school who's selling it and i buy it from him. Because it's a completely unregulated black market, there are no controls on how and where people buy it.
When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, beer and liquor were the drugs of choice because they were easy to get. I'd just have my brother get it for my friends and I, or in some cases we'd walk in the store and buy it ourselves.
And that's in a "regulated market".
Occasionally, someone would get their hands on some pot. What a big, fat, hairy deal that was. I'd hate to imagine what it would have been like if we could have got our hands on some hard drugs. I mean sure, we probably could have if we tried hard enough. But it would have been a major pain and none of us would have risked getting busted.
Now that I'm older and realize that I don't in fact know everything, I agree with the drug laws. Even the laws against pot, which leads to harder things like coke, crack, heroine, etc. As a society we should be striving to rid ourselves of these things by rewarding people who choose not to use them, and by punishing those who choose to do so.
As far as what kids are going to do, well that's where parenting comes in. Kids that receive the right guidance are even less likely to use in a prohibitive society because the hard drugs are more difficult to get. I'd even argue that some who migh be otherwise prone to experiment with them wouldn't, because of the same reason.
Those who are going to use drugs, regardless of the consequences, will always do so.
Punish them.
And that's in a "regulated market".
Occasionally, someone would get their hands on some pot. What a big, fat, hairy deal that was. I'd hate to imagine what it would have been like if we could have got our hands on some hard drugs. I mean sure, we probably could have if we tried hard enough. But it would have been a major pain and none of us would have risked getting busted.
Now that I'm older and realize that I don't in fact know everything, I agree with the drug laws. Even the laws against pot, which leads to harder things like coke, crack, heroine, etc. As a society we should be striving to rid ourselves of these things by rewarding people who choose not to use them, and by punishing those who choose to do so.
As far as what kids are going to do, well that's where parenting comes in. Kids that receive the right guidance are even less likely to use in a prohibitive society because the hard drugs are more difficult to get. I'd even argue that some who migh be otherwise prone to experiment with them wouldn't, because of the same reason.
Those who are going to use drugs, regardless of the consequences, will always do so.
Punish them.
pro-gun control ... anti-drug control.
pro-abortion ... anti-capital punishment.
anti-war peace movement ... pedophilia enablement.
You people sure are bizarre!
pro-abortion ... anti-capital punishment.
anti-war peace movement ... pedophilia enablement.
You people sure are bizarre!
anti-big government............pro-Ashcroft police state
pro-capital punishment........"pro-life"
pro-American..................anti-Bill of Rights
pro-"everybody needs a license to drive" but
anti-"any lunatic can own a gun"
anti-government waste.........pro Pentagon boondoogles
You people sure are bizarre!
pro-capital punishment........"pro-life"
pro-American..................anti-Bill of Rights
pro-"everybody needs a license to drive" but
anti-"any lunatic can own a gun"
anti-government waste.........pro Pentagon boondoogles
You people sure are bizarre!
"anti-big government............pro-Ashcroft police state"
Hyperbole. Get real.
"pro-capital punishment........"pro-life"
Punish the guilty. Protect the innocent.
"pro-American..................anti-Bill of Rights"
Hyperbole. Get real.
"pro-"everybody needs a license to drive" but anti-"any lunatic can own a gun"
Again hyperbole. Not to mention inconsistant with the "anti-Bill of Rights" comment you posted above. Owning a gun is protected under the Bill of Rights. Driving a car is not.
"anti-government waste.........pro Pentagon boondoogles "
Hyperbole. Get real.
Not only are you people sure are bizarre, but you're drama queens too!
Hyperbole. Get real.
"pro-capital punishment........"pro-life"
Punish the guilty. Protect the innocent.
"pro-American..................anti-Bill of Rights"
Hyperbole. Get real.
"pro-"everybody needs a license to drive" but anti-"any lunatic can own a gun"
Again hyperbole. Not to mention inconsistant with the "anti-Bill of Rights" comment you posted above. Owning a gun is protected under the Bill of Rights. Driving a car is not.
"anti-government waste.........pro Pentagon boondoogles "
Hyperbole. Get real.
Not only are you people sure are bizarre, but you're drama queens too!
I run this country, that's who the hell I am. I'm the guy that went to the ballot box and voted for all of those politicians that adopted the resolutions that were voted into laws that say you can't legally do drugs in my country.
I'm just one of the many. That's right, there's more of us. Obviously there are more of us than there are of you, else drug use would be legal, wouldn't it?
Wanna know why I did it? Because nothing good ever came from someone doped up on drugs. Not one fucking think. There sure are a lot of tragic things that have come from drug use though. I don't want you're doped up ass out driving your car dwon the highway alongside me and my family. I don't want your doped up ass shooting up out on the street corner where the rest of us have to witness you killing yourself. I don't want your doped up as peddling your crap at my childrens school. And I don't want your doped up ass throwing your hepatitis C/AIDS infected needles all over the park where I take my kids to play.
And as far as I care, anyone who does any of those things should get the death penalty. What the hell would they care, they're killing themselves anyway. Let's all just speed up the process and help them out. Make it quick and give them a real rush, just the way they like it. Lethal injection baby!
All drug users must die.
I'm just one of the many. That's right, there's more of us. Obviously there are more of us than there are of you, else drug use would be legal, wouldn't it?
Wanna know why I did it? Because nothing good ever came from someone doped up on drugs. Not one fucking think. There sure are a lot of tragic things that have come from drug use though. I don't want you're doped up ass out driving your car dwon the highway alongside me and my family. I don't want your doped up ass shooting up out on the street corner where the rest of us have to witness you killing yourself. I don't want your doped up as peddling your crap at my childrens school. And I don't want your doped up ass throwing your hepatitis C/AIDS infected needles all over the park where I take my kids to play.
And as far as I care, anyone who does any of those things should get the death penalty. What the hell would they care, they're killing themselves anyway. Let's all just speed up the process and help them out. Make it quick and give them a real rush, just the way they like it. Lethal injection baby!
All drug users must die.
It's no use talking to these lefties. They make the most assinine arguments one can imagine. Like this one. The US is responsible for Saddam's war mongering because we sold him weapons for defense of Iraq from Iran. In fact that's a reason we should let him do what he likes.
Logic???
Since I once baught a pistol from a police auction the police have no right to arrest me if I commit a crime with it.
See what I mean. Stupidity and assininity is the trade mark of lefties.
Logic???
Since I once baught a pistol from a police auction the police have no right to arrest me if I commit a crime with it.
See what I mean. Stupidity and assininity is the trade mark of lefties.
Lemmie splain this one to you, Lucy:
Containment vs. miltary conflict.
Containment works only if you have something that the people you are trying to contain want. North Korea wants food and money because they have none due to thier totalitarian police state.
Saddam wants power and control of the Mid-East.
Any questions, you Tards?
Containment vs. miltary conflict.
Containment works only if you have something that the people you are trying to contain want. North Korea wants food and money because they have none due to thier totalitarian police state.
Saddam wants power and control of the Mid-East.
Any questions, you Tards?
the right's arguments are now reduced to calling antiwar protesters "tards"...
Any one who can not see the difference between Iraq and North Korea are indeed TARDS!!!!!!!!! Can those of you on the Left ever understand anything that doesn't blow in your ear and make you feel warm and fuzzy?
yea right. wining. yep.
This just in from the Lobotomized Rightist:
it's time for all americans to stand up to the lies and propaganda spouted by radical left wing publications like time and newsweek as well as by the Islamist networks like CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the Emergency Broadcasting System. They are all TARDS and must be exposed for the far left communist nazi towelheads they are.
They say that The New York Times is another Marxist publication, and so I went and checked it out. However, the type was too small and it had too many big words. So I'm just going to have to take Rush's word that it is a filthy radical rag. I like Rush. He talks real slow so I don't get a headache.
You're all TARDS! I haven't seen so many stupid people since my first ten years of fourth grade.
TARDS!
it's time for all americans to stand up to the lies and propaganda spouted by radical left wing publications like time and newsweek as well as by the Islamist networks like CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the Emergency Broadcasting System. They are all TARDS and must be exposed for the far left communist nazi towelheads they are.
They say that The New York Times is another Marxist publication, and so I went and checked it out. However, the type was too small and it had too many big words. So I'm just going to have to take Rush's word that it is a filthy radical rag. I like Rush. He talks real slow so I don't get a headache.
You're all TARDS! I haven't seen so many stupid people since my first ten years of fourth grade.
TARDS!
>"That doesn’t make you right. To assert that it does is a logical fallacy."
It does in a democracy.
>Obviously there are more of us than there are of you, else drug use would be legal, wouldn't it?
>"That was once said of alcohol prohibition. We all know how that turned out. "
We sure do.
Thousands of alcohol related injuries and deaths every year. Depression, suicide, cirrhosis, birth defects, and more. See:
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg06_0003.html
>"That is simply untrue. Both Washington and Jefferson smoked and grew hemp. Americas greatest writer, Poe, was a life long drinker and laudanum user. John Hopkins Hospital founders Dr. William Stewart Halsted was a morphine addict. "
Just because there were some good people in history that happened to be addicted to certain drugs, does not mean that the good things they accomplished were as a result of their drug use.
To assert the good things those people did were as a result of their chemical dependences is simply untrue.
Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy.
See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.htm
You don’t know what your talking about. Go read some psychology.
>A drunk driver once broke my femur.
Then why would you advocate legalization of drug use when you've been victimized by the legalization of alcohol use. Bizarre liberalist logic.
Once again, Pado Wan nessie has argued against himself.
>"When drugs are legal again, that wont happen."
That's ridiculous. That's like saying (during the time of prohibition), "When alcohol use is legal, people won't drive drunk."
Patently absurd.
>"Nobody did that until Prohibition"
"Nobody drove their cars drunk until prohibition."
Again, patently absurd.
>What about alcohol drinkers, tobacco smokers and caffeine addicts like me? We use drugs. Do you want to kill us, too?
In the big scheme of things, those drugs pose relatively moderate problems to our society as a whole. Alcohol (being the worst of the three) has received intensive scrutiny over the previous few decades. When I was a child it was perfectly acceptable to drive around with an open beer can in your lap. Get caught doing that now and you can forget about having a nice day.
Nicotine, aside from it's addictive nature, is relatively harmless. It's the smoke that kills you. And only weak minded people can't break addictions. Caffeine, a mild stimulant, actually has many benificial effects including thermo-biologic that assist in weightloss.
So the answer is no, I don't want to kill those that use them. In fact, I really have no desire to kill anyone. What I want is for people to stop using potent, harmful drugs to the detriment of those around them.
This will not happen through the legalization of heavy drugs. To believe as much is to live in fantasy. Legalization of alcohol is a prime example. It has lead to the generation of enough legislature to choke a mule. Millions of taxpayer dollars must be consumed in inumerable ways in order to allow people this mild recreational vice. If my money is going to be spent regulating drug use, then I'd rather we just prohibit it completely.
It does in a democracy.
>Obviously there are more of us than there are of you, else drug use would be legal, wouldn't it?
>"That was once said of alcohol prohibition. We all know how that turned out. "
We sure do.
Thousands of alcohol related injuries and deaths every year. Depression, suicide, cirrhosis, birth defects, and more. See:
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg06_0003.html
>"That is simply untrue. Both Washington and Jefferson smoked and grew hemp. Americas greatest writer, Poe, was a life long drinker and laudanum user. John Hopkins Hospital founders Dr. William Stewart Halsted was a morphine addict. "
Just because there were some good people in history that happened to be addicted to certain drugs, does not mean that the good things they accomplished were as a result of their drug use.
To assert the good things those people did were as a result of their chemical dependences is simply untrue.
Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy.
See:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.htm
You don’t know what your talking about. Go read some psychology.
>A drunk driver once broke my femur.
Then why would you advocate legalization of drug use when you've been victimized by the legalization of alcohol use. Bizarre liberalist logic.
Once again, Pado Wan nessie has argued against himself.
>"When drugs are legal again, that wont happen."
That's ridiculous. That's like saying (during the time of prohibition), "When alcohol use is legal, people won't drive drunk."
Patently absurd.
>"Nobody did that until Prohibition"
"Nobody drove their cars drunk until prohibition."
Again, patently absurd.
>What about alcohol drinkers, tobacco smokers and caffeine addicts like me? We use drugs. Do you want to kill us, too?
In the big scheme of things, those drugs pose relatively moderate problems to our society as a whole. Alcohol (being the worst of the three) has received intensive scrutiny over the previous few decades. When I was a child it was perfectly acceptable to drive around with an open beer can in your lap. Get caught doing that now and you can forget about having a nice day.
Nicotine, aside from it's addictive nature, is relatively harmless. It's the smoke that kills you. And only weak minded people can't break addictions. Caffeine, a mild stimulant, actually has many benificial effects including thermo-biologic that assist in weightloss.
So the answer is no, I don't want to kill those that use them. In fact, I really have no desire to kill anyone. What I want is for people to stop using potent, harmful drugs to the detriment of those around them.
This will not happen through the legalization of heavy drugs. To believe as much is to live in fantasy. Legalization of alcohol is a prime example. It has lead to the generation of enough legislature to choke a mule. Millions of taxpayer dollars must be consumed in inumerable ways in order to allow people this mild recreational vice. If my money is going to be spent regulating drug use, then I'd rather we just prohibit it completely.
You are still 'Tards.
The only thing you managed to win, was the point that you can't think beyond simple concepts.
Nooooo...Lord forbid you ACTUALLY discuss the diffrences of North Korea and Iraq.
"That meanie-head called me a 'Tard!! I guess I'll go back to whining."
You leftists suck so much you should be called Hoover-ites.
All you do is whine about "Feelings" and can't stand to get into a discussion where it might get a little rough and STILL be able to make a valid point.
The only thing you have won is the title Tards extraordinaire.
Perhaps I should start calling you TURDS. Little "Pieces of Feces."
BTW....TARD: Total Absence of Reputable Debate
The fact that the same crap keeps coming up over and over again in your minds makes you ReTARDS.
The only thing you managed to win, was the point that you can't think beyond simple concepts.
Nooooo...Lord forbid you ACTUALLY discuss the diffrences of North Korea and Iraq.
"That meanie-head called me a 'Tard!! I guess I'll go back to whining."
You leftists suck so much you should be called Hoover-ites.
All you do is whine about "Feelings" and can't stand to get into a discussion where it might get a little rough and STILL be able to make a valid point.
The only thing you have won is the title Tards extraordinaire.
Perhaps I should start calling you TURDS. Little "Pieces of Feces."
BTW....TARD: Total Absence of Reputable Debate
The fact that the same crap keeps coming up over and over again in your minds makes you ReTARDS.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"
--The first Presidential debate
"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."
--Referring to his Bob Jones University visit and the subsequent criticism, Virginia, February 25, 2000
"There ought to limits to freedom"
--at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999, referring to GWBush.com
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating."
--U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000
Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime until we get an objective analysis."
--Meet the Press, April 15, 2000
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."
--Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.
-Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect
"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"
--The first Presidential debate
"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."
--Referring to his Bob Jones University visit and the subsequent criticism, Virginia, February 25, 2000
"There ought to limits to freedom"
--at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999, referring to GWBush.com
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating."
--U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000
Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime until we get an objective analysis."
--Meet the Press, April 15, 2000
"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."
--Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.
-Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/
>"Aren’t you the guy who says this isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic?"
Show me where I've ever said that. I don't claim it's either. In my opinion it's a reasonable combination of both.
>"The fact is that in some, though not all, cases people actually accomplish good things as a result of their drug us."
The more significantand predominant fact is that in the vast majority of cases, most drug addicts never accomplish squat. At best they are a mere burden on society. At worst, they are parasites that rob, steal, and kill. It's not worth the risk to leagalize these substances in the hopes that these things will ever change. In fact it would be pure foolishness.
>"That’s an invalid analogy."
It's quite valid. You claimed that legalizing drugs would minimize drug related crime. In fact it was you that brought up alcohol prohibition, implying that things were somehow made better after it was retracted.
All I did was to underscore the lunacy of that argument.
Alcohol was at one time, illegal. Did legalizing it result in a reduction of alcohol related crimes? How about alcohol related physiological problems like birth defects to children of drunkard moms? I could go on and on.
The short of it is that the only thing that went away by legalizing alcohol was the intense demand of this drug which was in short supply. Hence, the price came down. That's it. And in return we've gotten heaps of problems and next to no good from it's rampant use by alcohol addicts.
Expect the exact same from the legalization of drugs. The only thing that will happen is the price will come down. In return there will be more children doped up, and more adults doped up, and more liberals doped up. And probably more conservative doped up to more aptly deal with those liberals.
Most people are already idiots anyway. We need all of the brain cells we have just to function, drive down the road, tie our shoes and wipe our butts. Drugging us up can only result in things getting worse. Not to mention making it far easier for the plutocrats to control us. Isn't that right?
>"People shoot up in alleys and throw rigs in the street because there is no safe, legal place for them to do, otherwise."
That makes no sense. There's plenty of safe, legal places to throw away trash. As far as shooting up is concerned, why not do it in their homes? Don't tell me. Let me guess. It's because they spent all of their money on drugs and they can't afford homes, right?
As usual, stupid continue to get punished.
>Alcohol is very destructive when its abused, and cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans every year, and that’s just the Americans."
You're arguing against yourself again, Pado-one.
>"What are you saying here, that substance abuse is not a mental illness, or that only the strong willed deserve to be treated as human? "
The mental illness is being weakminded enough to prevent breaking addiction. If alcohol addiction is a mental illness, then a strong case can be made that MANY things are mental illnesses, from not lifting the lid when a man takes a pee, to homosexuality.
>"I agree whole heartedly. It;s a *wonderful* drug."
You're the one putting words in mouths. It's not a "wonderful" drug. Useful to some degree, but not wonderful. Don't exaggerate.
>"But it’s also addictive. I’m thoroughly addicted to to caffeine. So what? It’s nobody’s business but mine."
Addiction is a mental trick that results from habit. So is learning how to beat addictions for that matter. Calling addiction a "mental illness" is a cop-out. It's an excuse for the weak minded. Everything good in this world can be accomplished without recreational drug use. Period.
You're doing a disservice to mankind by arguing otherwise.
But such is your modusoperandi.
>"So that was you talking. I should have guessed. "
One of perhaps a million times we've talked and you didn't know it was me. Again, I'm disappointed.
>"No, you do not run this country. This country is run by a tiny handful of interlocking families, through their control of the corporations by way of their seats on interlocking boards of directors."
Who are these key players nessie. I'd love to hear what you know.
And how do you know for certain I'm not one of them?
Show me where I've ever said that. I don't claim it's either. In my opinion it's a reasonable combination of both.
>"The fact is that in some, though not all, cases people actually accomplish good things as a result of their drug us."
The more significantand predominant fact is that in the vast majority of cases, most drug addicts never accomplish squat. At best they are a mere burden on society. At worst, they are parasites that rob, steal, and kill. It's not worth the risk to leagalize these substances in the hopes that these things will ever change. In fact it would be pure foolishness.
>"That’s an invalid analogy."
It's quite valid. You claimed that legalizing drugs would minimize drug related crime. In fact it was you that brought up alcohol prohibition, implying that things were somehow made better after it was retracted.
All I did was to underscore the lunacy of that argument.
Alcohol was at one time, illegal. Did legalizing it result in a reduction of alcohol related crimes? How about alcohol related physiological problems like birth defects to children of drunkard moms? I could go on and on.
The short of it is that the only thing that went away by legalizing alcohol was the intense demand of this drug which was in short supply. Hence, the price came down. That's it. And in return we've gotten heaps of problems and next to no good from it's rampant use by alcohol addicts.
Expect the exact same from the legalization of drugs. The only thing that will happen is the price will come down. In return there will be more children doped up, and more adults doped up, and more liberals doped up. And probably more conservative doped up to more aptly deal with those liberals.
Most people are already idiots anyway. We need all of the brain cells we have just to function, drive down the road, tie our shoes and wipe our butts. Drugging us up can only result in things getting worse. Not to mention making it far easier for the plutocrats to control us. Isn't that right?
>"People shoot up in alleys and throw rigs in the street because there is no safe, legal place for them to do, otherwise."
That makes no sense. There's plenty of safe, legal places to throw away trash. As far as shooting up is concerned, why not do it in their homes? Don't tell me. Let me guess. It's because they spent all of their money on drugs and they can't afford homes, right?
As usual, stupid continue to get punished.
>Alcohol is very destructive when its abused, and cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans every year, and that’s just the Americans."
You're arguing against yourself again, Pado-one.
>"What are you saying here, that substance abuse is not a mental illness, or that only the strong willed deserve to be treated as human? "
The mental illness is being weakminded enough to prevent breaking addiction. If alcohol addiction is a mental illness, then a strong case can be made that MANY things are mental illnesses, from not lifting the lid when a man takes a pee, to homosexuality.
>"I agree whole heartedly. It;s a *wonderful* drug."
You're the one putting words in mouths. It's not a "wonderful" drug. Useful to some degree, but not wonderful. Don't exaggerate.
>"But it’s also addictive. I’m thoroughly addicted to to caffeine. So what? It’s nobody’s business but mine."
Addiction is a mental trick that results from habit. So is learning how to beat addictions for that matter. Calling addiction a "mental illness" is a cop-out. It's an excuse for the weak minded. Everything good in this world can be accomplished without recreational drug use. Period.
You're doing a disservice to mankind by arguing otherwise.
But such is your modusoperandi.
>"So that was you talking. I should have guessed. "
One of perhaps a million times we've talked and you didn't know it was me. Again, I'm disappointed.
>"No, you do not run this country. This country is run by a tiny handful of interlocking families, through their control of the corporations by way of their seats on interlocking boards of directors."
Who are these key players nessie. I'd love to hear what you know.
And how do you know for certain I'm not one of them?
http://www.rense.com/general40/ritter.htm
Hero - Scott Ritter
Was Right All Along
By Carl F. Worden
8-25-03
Scott Ritter was right all along. That former Marine and Weapons Inspector has got more redeeming character, personal integrity and raw courage, than just about anyone in America. In my mind, he ranks right up there with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who has been suspended ten days for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the entrance to the Alabama Supreme Court, and former Army Specialist Michael New, who got drummed out of the Army for correctly refusing to wear United Nations insignia.
Our children are not being taught what a real hero is anymore. They are not being taught right from wrong, let alone trained to use those unwavering principles to make correct, everyday personal decisions. Only real heroes do that. It doesn't matter to heroes how many others ridicule and try to shout them down. They have the basic Laws of God written into their hearts, they know right from wrong, truth from lies, and they stand up for what they know is right because they know God Himself is standing right behind them. Frankly, they don't need anybody else.
Such is the person of Scott Ritter, who appeared on Fox's Geraldo Rivera segment August 24th. Ritter has been hammered repeatedly for his stand against the war on Iraq, primarily because he insisted Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction the Bush Administration claimed it did. He has been accused of collusion with Saddam Hussein, and investigated to suggest Saddam paid him off. Everything, including the kitchen sink has been thrown at Ritter to shut him up, but like one of those old-style punching bags, he just keeps popping right back up.
Well, Ritter did it again last night. Geraldo interviewed Ritter at the same time as a gaggle of soldiers stationed in Iraq, and a retired general whose name I can't recall at the moment.
You have to appreciate Geraldo's set-up. There's this group of soldiers standing like deer in the headlights, knowing full well that if they question the necessity of the war, complain about their atrocious living conditions and lack of supplies, food, personnel and equipment, lament the occupation and their mounting dead, or anything else that could possibly be construed as criticism, their military careers will be road kill. Okay, so we already know what they're going to say.
Then there's the retired general, who appears regularly on Fox to give his analysis of the military goings on in Iraq - and we know he doesn't do it for free.
So we've got this one gutsy guy named Scott Ritter facing another virtual firing squad, and standing up to them with complete confidence that he'll walk away unscathed. He pulled it off just like he always has before - only this time he had a lot more backing his position than he ever did before the war commenced: Now he has the hard proof.
Ritter made it clear from the onset that he emphatically supported the troops, and that they had done an excellent job as ordered. He also stated our troops should be brought home immediately.
Ritter correctly stated that this was a war "elected" by President Bush (read without a congressional declaration) on the basis that there was an imminent threat by Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction against America and her allies. He pointed out that in lieu of such a threat, the war had been unnecessary - just as he'd warned all along - and that the United States should pull out of Iraq immediately and let the people of Iraq have their nation back. Ritter also pointed out quite succinctly that because no imminent threat from Iraq actually existed, then by default, our attack on Iraq was an act of naked aggression.
Duh.
Naturally, when Geraldo interviewed the soldiers, they made nice and said they were oh-so happy to have helped "liberate" the people of Iraq from mean old Saddam. One said he joined the military to "serve his country" and was proud to do it. Unlike Michael New, he had apparently forgotten that he is sworn to serve his country within the confines of the Constitution and his oath.
The retired general was just a pom-pom girl for anything our soldiers are ever ordered to do, congressionally declared or not, constitutional or not and legal or not, just like a lot of our brain-dead flag-waving citizens whose enthusiasm for war and killing has been noticeably muted of late.
Scott Ritter won that little debate hands down. Real heroes always do.
By the way, we've captured most of the "Deck of Cards" in Iraq now, and not one of those high-ranking officers has cut a deal for themselves by pointing out where those WMDs are hidden. What, not one? The inevitable offer of wealth and immunity in a nice safe place anywhere they want to go, and no takers? Trust me, if they knew, they'd be talking. Bush can't keep this fat lie alive much longer. Ritter was right all along: Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction - at least not anymore.
If you really want to know how our soldiers are doing in Iraq, don't waste your time watching staged interviews with intimidated soldiers on CNN and Fox. Get the straight scoop from the horse's mouths by logging on to hero David Hackworth's Website at:
http://www.hackworth.com/index.html
Hackworth is a trusted friend of the military grunt, and he is collecting numerous letters from some very angry soldiers stuck in the quagmire of Iraq.
Take note of the fact our soldiers are so poorly equipped that they are taking up confiscated AK-47 assault rifles because they have more confiscated ammunition for those rifles than they have issued to them for their M-16s. They've found the AK-47 to be far more reliable than the M-16, and the AK is superior in close quarters battle.
To my hero Michael New: Had you not stood up for what was right, you might also be partaking of the plagues of Iraq yourself. Excellent choice! I hope that message rings in the ears of those gutless cowards now stationed in Iraq who would not stand with you.
Carl F. Worden
Hero - Scott Ritter
Was Right All Along
By Carl F. Worden
8-25-03
Scott Ritter was right all along. That former Marine and Weapons Inspector has got more redeeming character, personal integrity and raw courage, than just about anyone in America. In my mind, he ranks right up there with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who has been suspended ten days for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from the entrance to the Alabama Supreme Court, and former Army Specialist Michael New, who got drummed out of the Army for correctly refusing to wear United Nations insignia.
Our children are not being taught what a real hero is anymore. They are not being taught right from wrong, let alone trained to use those unwavering principles to make correct, everyday personal decisions. Only real heroes do that. It doesn't matter to heroes how many others ridicule and try to shout them down. They have the basic Laws of God written into their hearts, they know right from wrong, truth from lies, and they stand up for what they know is right because they know God Himself is standing right behind them. Frankly, they don't need anybody else.
Such is the person of Scott Ritter, who appeared on Fox's Geraldo Rivera segment August 24th. Ritter has been hammered repeatedly for his stand against the war on Iraq, primarily because he insisted Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction the Bush Administration claimed it did. He has been accused of collusion with Saddam Hussein, and investigated to suggest Saddam paid him off. Everything, including the kitchen sink has been thrown at Ritter to shut him up, but like one of those old-style punching bags, he just keeps popping right back up.
Well, Ritter did it again last night. Geraldo interviewed Ritter at the same time as a gaggle of soldiers stationed in Iraq, and a retired general whose name I can't recall at the moment.
You have to appreciate Geraldo's set-up. There's this group of soldiers standing like deer in the headlights, knowing full well that if they question the necessity of the war, complain about their atrocious living conditions and lack of supplies, food, personnel and equipment, lament the occupation and their mounting dead, or anything else that could possibly be construed as criticism, their military careers will be road kill. Okay, so we already know what they're going to say.
Then there's the retired general, who appears regularly on Fox to give his analysis of the military goings on in Iraq - and we know he doesn't do it for free.
So we've got this one gutsy guy named Scott Ritter facing another virtual firing squad, and standing up to them with complete confidence that he'll walk away unscathed. He pulled it off just like he always has before - only this time he had a lot more backing his position than he ever did before the war commenced: Now he has the hard proof.
Ritter made it clear from the onset that he emphatically supported the troops, and that they had done an excellent job as ordered. He also stated our troops should be brought home immediately.
Ritter correctly stated that this was a war "elected" by President Bush (read without a congressional declaration) on the basis that there was an imminent threat by Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction against America and her allies. He pointed out that in lieu of such a threat, the war had been unnecessary - just as he'd warned all along - and that the United States should pull out of Iraq immediately and let the people of Iraq have their nation back. Ritter also pointed out quite succinctly that because no imminent threat from Iraq actually existed, then by default, our attack on Iraq was an act of naked aggression.
Duh.
Naturally, when Geraldo interviewed the soldiers, they made nice and said they were oh-so happy to have helped "liberate" the people of Iraq from mean old Saddam. One said he joined the military to "serve his country" and was proud to do it. Unlike Michael New, he had apparently forgotten that he is sworn to serve his country within the confines of the Constitution and his oath.
The retired general was just a pom-pom girl for anything our soldiers are ever ordered to do, congressionally declared or not, constitutional or not and legal or not, just like a lot of our brain-dead flag-waving citizens whose enthusiasm for war and killing has been noticeably muted of late.
Scott Ritter won that little debate hands down. Real heroes always do.
By the way, we've captured most of the "Deck of Cards" in Iraq now, and not one of those high-ranking officers has cut a deal for themselves by pointing out where those WMDs are hidden. What, not one? The inevitable offer of wealth and immunity in a nice safe place anywhere they want to go, and no takers? Trust me, if they knew, they'd be talking. Bush can't keep this fat lie alive much longer. Ritter was right all along: Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction - at least not anymore.
If you really want to know how our soldiers are doing in Iraq, don't waste your time watching staged interviews with intimidated soldiers on CNN and Fox. Get the straight scoop from the horse's mouths by logging on to hero David Hackworth's Website at:
http://www.hackworth.com/index.html
Hackworth is a trusted friend of the military grunt, and he is collecting numerous letters from some very angry soldiers stuck in the quagmire of Iraq.
Take note of the fact our soldiers are so poorly equipped that they are taking up confiscated AK-47 assault rifles because they have more confiscated ammunition for those rifles than they have issued to them for their M-16s. They've found the AK-47 to be far more reliable than the M-16, and the AK is superior in close quarters battle.
To my hero Michael New: Had you not stood up for what was right, you might also be partaking of the plagues of Iraq yourself. Excellent choice! I hope that message rings in the ears of those gutless cowards now stationed in Iraq who would not stand with you.
Carl F. Worden
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network