Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Anti-War
TARGET: SCOTT RITTER: The War Party gets ugly
by Justin Raimondo (repost of)
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 7:27 AM

The War Party gets ugly

By Justin Raimondo

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who quit in 1998 and now says the U.S. is intent on manufacturing phony "evidence" of arms violations as a pretext for war, is the victim of what may be the sleaziest set-up job in recent history, a smearing so foul that it makes the Clinton crowd look like a bunch of amateurs. The news that he may have been arrested, in June 2001, as the result of an internet sex sting, in which an undercover cop posing as a sixteen-year-old girl lured him into "sex chat" over the internet, came to light in a very strange way. A local newspaper, the Daily Gazette, of Schenectady, New York, was first to pick up the dirt, which apparently came to light when an assistant district attorney was fired for settling the case and not informing the D.A. According to the Gazette:

"Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss the case, which involved at least one class B misdemeanor, because it was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ordered sealed by a Colonie Town Court justice. The Daily Gazette's request for access to the arrest report was denied by the Colonie town attorney's office, which ruled disclosure was barred under the state Freedom of Information Law."

So the police just happened to conduct a "sex sting" operation against the one man who had exposed the lies of our war-mad rulers from the inside. On the eve of war, as hundreds of thousands protest in the streets, this staunch Republican and solid family man who has become one of the War Party's most formidable enemies is suddenly "exposed" as a child molester.

Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up?

Anybody who doesn't believe that Ritter was specifically targeted on account of his political activities needs to seek help: that sort of naivete can be terminal, and the patient probably shouldn't be trusted to cross the street unattended.

In the post-9/11 era of the "Patriot" Act and the Office of Total Information Awareness, what is happening to Ritter is meant as a warning to anyone who dares oppose this government. Former UN inspectors, it seems, are a special target. Remember that other inspector, Jack McGeorge, also an American, who was "outed" as being a member of a sado-masochistic "advocacy" organization? Just as our war birds were wailing in bitter disappointment that the inspections process would delay or maybe even derail the much anticipated bloodbath, suddenly one of the inspectors is "exposed" as a sadomasochist. The point was not to somehow prove that this made him unfit for the job, but simply to degrade him, to make the experience so painful that he would immediately withdraw – which is precisely what happened.

There's nothing at all fishy about a "sealed" court record leaked to reporters, complete with an alleged "mug shot" of Ritter broadcast on television and republished by MSNBC. It's all a coincidence that this comes out just as the war crisis reaches its climax – or anti-climax – and the administration is desperate to come up with a half-way convincing rationale for war. What are you – a conspiracy theorist? Everybody knows the U.S. government is inherently and constitutionally incapable of pulling off such a dirty rotten lowdown trick. After all, isn't that why they hate us – because we're so wonderfully "free"? Free to be spied on; free to be set-up and smeared if we defy the powers-that-be; "free" to be entrapped by cyber-cops who randomly chose the single most convincing opponent of the War Party to snare in a web of deception.

The reaction to this is really a sight to behold. The same "conservative" movement that reveled and rolled around in the muck of the Clinton years like a pig in a deluxe pen, luxuriating in the filth that bubbled up like a perpetual hot bath, is all abuzz. With all the defiant malignity of Lucianne Goldberg and her son, what's-his-name, rolling the latest Clintonian dirtball around on their tongues as if it were the last bon bon in the box, they are drooling over this one. (Look at bottom-feeder Jonah Goldberg lap it up.)

It's sickening, really, to even contemplate what is going on here, but we should look at this ugliness full in the face. Because in forcing ourselves to see it, we can see the War Party – the gang of lying, thieving, conniving thugs with delusions of grandeur who dominate this administration – in its essence.

Look on the face of evil, and, if you don't turn to stone, remember it well. Because this is what we're up against, in America: an evil that is almost demonic in its pure malevolence, a dark destructive spirit that feeds on pain and is animated by the will to crush its enemies underfoot. This is the face of an enemy that must be defeated.


Comments  (Hide Comments)

by x
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 7:30 AM
by Randy of the Redwoods
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 7:52 AM
Boy, if your horses ever learn to keep their willies under control, you may actually get somewhere...

But, the screaming "Foul !!" whenever a prominant spokesman has his/her past revealed is hilarious...He has admitted his actions...are they reprehensible ?? I'll abstain from judgement...are they newsworthy ?? you betcha...
Do they invalidate his viewpoints ?/ absolutely not...

Better to fess up to your own human failings, get it behind you and continue on...

But, don't try to blame others...that is truly pathetic
by scott ritter
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 8:05 AM
"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."

Follow the link at the bottom of the article above and read the interview.

Clinton lied. Period. He deserves no defense. Liberals that defend Clinton are foolish.

But let's get a few things straight here. This whole ball of wax regarding Scott Ritter is an entirely different mater.
by the thing is
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 1:23 PM
The way this SEALED court record came public is odd. Pointing to that and questioning it is one issue -- quite apart from what you seem to be implying are noises by some to defend Ritter. Schemes and dirty tricks are par for the course in politics, and this court record was sealed. Something is up here.... something behind the scenes.
by x
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 9:34 PM
The only thing that is obvious about this case so far is that it's EXTREMELY ODD that a sealed court case would suddenly be pushed into the public eye.  That is a fact. 
Did Ritter commit naughty behavior?  Perhaps.  It would seem so, but the charges were dismissed in favor of a lesser charge and the case was sealed.  So, the guy, as he has said in a television interview, has gone before the law and made himself 100% accountable.  That's far more than you can say for people like George W. Bush, who flat-out go AWOL on their Texas Air National Guard service for about a year, and have the entire thing covered up.  Or, to mix things up here, it's far than you can say for slick Clinton, who had the insanity to go before the American people and try to slip a line like "I did not have sex with that woman" passed us as if oral sex didn't count.
No, Ritter isn't in the same league, regardless of what happened.  He was 100% accountable to the legal system and the case was closed AND SEALED.  And SOMEONE made damn sure that this SEALED record was leaked to the press, one way or another.  That's the story here, not Ritter's behavior.  You can pass your distortion off easily on freeper boards or in the mainstream media, but over here we'll just give you a passing smirk.  There are many right-winger drive-by postings on indymedia these days, but we haven't lost our ability to think clearly and research, thank you very much.
TV interview of Ritter is located here:
In the interview, he makes a not so subtle hint to investigative journalists:
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....

He can't talk about the case, as it's a sealed case.  But sealed cases don't just jump out of file cabinets and into journalists hands by magic, and the pretext in this instance is the flimsy notion that canning the assistant district attorney last week required a statement in the press to be made to explain that incident.  AGAIN, IT WAS A SEALED CASE, and there was no reason or justification for disclosing what the case was.  The district attorney could have easily said the assistant district attorney was fired, end of story, and not provided a reason.  Think critically here people!  Dang.  I have no idea what happened here.  But I do know enough to know without a doubt that:

1) it's not an accident that the decision was made to reveal that it was the Ritter case that got the assistant DA in hot water

2) that extensive information, including a mug shot, was provided to the media, that it was a direct hand-off and had to be orchestrated

Again, to reiterate, Ritter may have been doing some naughty things!  But that's irrelevant.  He went before the law, was accountable, and the case was closed and sealed.  

by x
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 10:08 PM
Uh, if you're going to be a hack, you really ought to consider being a bit more subtle. You give yourself away.

Indymedia isn't CNN Crossfire (well, maybe on the Israel/Palestinian threads it is -- heh heh). People are not stupid here. You can shout or position with inflammatory rhetoric, but the more extreme you get, the more it's clear you're deviating from the basic points noted in the message immediately preceding your post.
by Randy of the Redwoods
Thursday Jan 23rd, 2003 10:17 PM
Don't you just hate it when the truth comes out ??

It must have been an attempt to silence him...It was a conspiracy...

Too bad that your idea of justice and privacy only applies to a select few..

"He is not technically a pedophile"

"That depends on what the definition of "is" is"

" His private convictions should remain private"

Your spin is making me dizzy...

since Ritter was caught luring a "16 year old" into a sexual you really think that this was his first time ?? The questions shouldn't be "who spilled the beans and why"..they should be.."what else has this pervert done...and who knows about it ??"

by Conservatives Against the War
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 3:31 AM
Our numbers are growing and unlike the pacifists, we REALLY know how to kick right wing butt. So we're coming for all you neo-conservative phonies. The Republican Party of Russell Kirk Will Rise Again!
by no he wasn't
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 3:33 AM
If anything, it was Ritter who was lured. And we don't even know that for sure.
by transactional equity
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 4:07 AM
Do you have special knowlege about the case that we don't, mate?

Are you a pedophile too?

I think you are....

btw - an attack on charcter is a LOGICAL FALLACY!!

Can you name it?
by Conservatives Against the War
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 4:35 AM
Real conservatives are against the war, Mr. "Ritter Is A Pedophile." Go read The American Conservative and watch right winger Robert Novak. And then go fuck yourself.
by History Bytes
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 5:27 AM
"The fact that Ritter can deny these charges leads me and most people (people who are rational) to believe they are true"

Something denied MUSt be true!

Need I say more?

Some people are rather obsessed with Ritters penis...

I wonder why?
by one explanation
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 5:30 AM
Maybe it's penises in general.
by F
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 8:16 AM
The warmongers have always had a nack for blaming their Detractors of what they themelves Are guilty of.
All you need do is look into their ``Bohemian club``
to find out more about their sexual promiscuity with uncosenting minors.
by Ken Gourley
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 8:00 PM
Just goes to show how low born again Nazis will stoop Oil folks just the oil and of course any drugs they can get their hands on, like from Columbia etc. I know that was daddies franchise, but the boy is following in daddies footsteps, just keeping it in the fuhrer/family as it were.
Friday Jan 24th, 2003 10:31 PM
by tdyb
Tuesday Jan 28th, 2003 7:38 PM
It couldn't possibly be that he's just a lowlife, now could it. That's too simple and logical of an explanation, and not nearly as emotionally satisfying. So now the anti-war crazies support murder, torture, -and - child abuse? Greeeeat.
by Yup, that's them alright
Tuesday Jan 28th, 2003 7:43 PM
They're nothing but a bunch of sheep shagging, baby eating, devil worshipers. That's what they are. They also pull the wing off of kittens. And they're ugly, and their mother dresses them funny.
by eddy
Tuesday Jan 28th, 2003 9:24 PM
Not only that, it seems that those who see themselves as the best and the brightest are the very ones who have been hit in the head with a brick.
by johnnyjoe
Saturday Feb 1st, 2003 12:29 AM
assuming ritter is a pedophile, it is not unreasonable to suppose he was 'lured' into some illicit action during his inspection years, which was 'captured on tape' - this then became the motor of his conversion respecting iraq's posture. blackmail in other words. then, u.s. gets intel about same and does some poop n snoop on arrest records, presto......
by Joyce Valenzano
(windmother [at] Tuesday Feb 4th, 2003 7:53 PM

Cudos to Justin Raimondo for a wonderfully stated point of truth!!!
I recently watched a video of Mr. Ritter's Dec 3rd talk at Binghamton University and was impressed with his candor and intelligence.
Being a student of human nature, I watch people intently for common body language patterns that reveal a person's integrity or lack thereof. Mr. Ritter's hands were never clenched tightly, but rather they remained open, a jesture that has proven to me to indicate that a person has nothing to hide. In other words, Mr. Ritter does not set off my BS dectector. Conversely, Bush and company set my alarms off with just a look---they always have. As a matter of fact, when I look at Cheney, I see a man who would seem more comfortable in the McCarthy hearing.

There is no doubt in my mind that the war party is behind the attempted discrediting of Mr. Ritter and I hihgly doubt that it is going to fly with intelligent people. As I watch my fellow Americans, I see more and more evidence that We, the People, are fed up with 'politics/business as usual'. Last night I watched the city council meeting and saw average folks calling the council to task for the lack of vision and foresight that has resulted in the rapid decline of this city.

The awakening has begun in earnest. And Patti Smith sez it all when she sings "People have the power to redeem the work of fools; from the meek the graces shower, it's decreed---the people rule....."

by amazed
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 3:13 AM
Ok, so Ritter doesn't clasp his hands together and that tells you that everything is ok? What an asshole.
by you're one to talk
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 5:52 AM
The government said he's a pedophile so you think it that means it must be true!?! You're not just an asshole, you're an idiot.
by me
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 5:58 AM
Get your head outa your ass. It's a matter of public record. He doesn't even deny it. Justs questions the timing of the leak. Christ you're an idiot.
by a guy who was framed once
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 6:02 AM
That does NOT make him guilty.
by Justin Raimondo
(Fujio15 [at] Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 4:36 PM
Your argument that Scott Ritter was "targeted" would be much stronger had this been the first time he was charged, but this seems to be an ongoing pattern of behavior,as he was charged back in early 2001 with the same offense.
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 7:42 PM
So are you saying that Ritter was not targeted at all, but that he is guilty of this behavior on an ongoing basis and thus most likely not smeared? That doesn't sound like the Justin R. I know.
by yet another imposter
Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 8:36 PM
yet another imposter
by Mike Brumley
(mikebrumley1 [at] Wednesday Feb 5th, 2003 11:58 PM
You should be writing Gothic novels - this piece is dark, scary, and 100% bs. Good job!

I do have one question though - if it were you, what would you do? Myself, I'd have that case unsealed immediately, and loudly share each and every detail with anyone who would listen. That being of course, because I didn't do it, and I'd want everyone to see that for themselves.

Given the nature of the accusation, I can't think of any other charge it could have been, that would be so awful, I'd rather have people think I'm a pedophile. So, no matter what it was about - DUI, wife-beating, whatever - tell the whole story, and let the chips fall. But then, that's how innocent people tend to think.

Scott seems to be taking a different approach, in which he refuses to comment on any aspect save one - why he feels he shouldn't have to talk about it. This is the song of the guilty, and it's one we've heard sung before - by O.J, Bubba, and many others.

Despite his feeble attempts to imply that, like officers of the court, he is legally bound to silence, the truth is that Scott could have requested - and should have insisted - that the case be unsealed at any time. He hasn't, he won't, and we all know why that is.

Stung by the knowledge that one of its greatest Anti-Bush champions is a pedophile, the left spins and spins the customary tales of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracies. At least this time the writing has gotten a bit better.
by a guy who was framed once
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 12:03 AM
No we don't. Everyone here is guessing. So I'll guess, too. My guess is that he has been shown some fabricated, but convincing, evidence against him, and has been told to shut up or else.
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 12:10 AM
joke's on you. justin is a conservative right wing libertarian. visit his for proof or pick up The American Conservative magazine, an anti-war zine that he contributes to.

Smear, smear, smear, that's all you pro-war cheeseballs like to do.

by one of the editors
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 4:37 PM
He's lying. I just checked. Five of his comments have been hidden, all for valid reasons. However, not a single one was from this thread. He's a liar. Keep that in mind when you read his stuff that was not hidden.
by one of the editors
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 5:16 PM
>my posts were removed.

Not from this thread they weren't. A partial truth is a lie. Stop lying.

>I have no reason to lie.

Why, then, are you doing it? Are you pathological?

>tolerence for other viewpoints

Why should we allow our time, money and energy to be hijacked by our enemies and used to promote their agendas?
by has no one thought of this?
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 5:55 PM I missing something? Ritter's arrest (he was arrested, not "may have been" as Justin R. writes) took place in June of 2001- months BEFORE he became the schitzoprenic champion of the anti-Bush left. Are we to believe that John Ashcroft somehow created a time machine, went back before Sept 11th, and framed Ritter in anticipation of him possibly speaking out against war.?? You guys must have some good dope in San Fran..
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 6:06 PM
i've considered the timeline. Ritter quit the inspections in 1998, when he realized they were being used as a cover for U.S. spying. He went public with these accusations.

It's quite likely the government, or some appendage of it, set up a sting for this reason alone. Making a charge like Ritter did is serious business, and likely to incur the wrath of the gods.

So it's possible Bush and co. learned of this sting (if it occurred, it's likely they did), and waited for the proper moment to leak it.

So yes, almost everybody "thought of this." So you can go back to sleep.
by Irving Glick
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 6:24 PM
1. Ritter solicited an underage girl via the internet.

2. He got caught.

3. HE plea bargained his way into a misdemeanor.

4. "Dirty tricks" politicos dug it up to smear him.

Old hat, happens all the time. Standard for all parties. What's the big deal?
by j busch
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 6:38 PM
Oh, oh, I forgot...the dark and nefarious arms of the 'government' are always on the lookout for dirt. So even during the Clinton/Reno years (1998) the goons were trailing Ritter, hoping that later administrations would use this dirt to advance the forces of darkness. Fine story. Occam's razor requires me to believe that A) Scott Ritter is a creep. B) Somebody tried to hide the initial arrest report in 2001. C) The report resurfaced on the internet. D) Ritter has dropped out of sight. Sounds pretty creepy..... anyway, thanks for the word. You can get back to your treason now.
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 8:30 PM
it's not surprising you would choose the most simple-minded, er, I mean, the most simple explanation.

i wasn't aware that occam's razor is applicable to human interactions, but it would be just like a bean-counting conservative to assume that it would.

i say ritter was framed.
by little ole' lady who?
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 9:01 PM
by Q
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 9:39 PM
>i say ritter was framed.

A main reason to frame someone would be if that individual could somehow damage what you are trying to accomplish. Ritter could not do that at all. He was nothing but a illigitimate side-show rider in the first place, more to be pitied and laughed at than to be taken seriously. After this incident, you don't hear from him anymore, the networks don't even want his dog and pony show. Only here at indybay would Ritter be dragged on into infinity. Go ahead. Make him a patron saint. That would be the topper.
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 9:58 PM
The rest of the world is paying attention, asshole.

by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 10:02 PM
my own mother, flipping me off. how heartbreaking
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 10:35 PM
I can escape from any corner, my man, even after I'm done painting.

Did Saddam frame Ritter? Maybe. Do you have any evidence Saddam knew about Ritter's alleged preferences? Your theory is a lost less credible than mine, I say.

But it's all just conjecture. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But I'll be long gone from that corner.
by Rudder
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 10:37 PM
That's funny. "The rest of the world" - HA!! Gotta go to Japan to get a report on Ritter dismissing Powell. Japan!!

Even if Ritter were squeeky clean, he was already a side-show; the unicycle riding, juggeling monkey on the highwire. He's even more illigitimate now. Ritter - The Patron Saint of Irrelevance.
by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 11:30 PM
As long as the Patron Saint is around to testify at Rumsfeld's and Perle's war crimes trials, that will be enough. hopefully, he'll keep his schedule open; and it won't conflict with his Nobel Prize Acceptance speech, which he's sure to win, as the rest of the world "hates" us, and all that stuff, as you cheeseballs keep bragging about.

by mike
Thursday Feb 6th, 2003 11:43 PM
This interview was prior to Ritter's change of heart, or, more precisely, in the middle of it. So I guess it was around this time that Saddam kidnapped him and injected him with mind control chemicals--which he probably got from us, by the way--and turned him into a pervert and sent him loose on the streets of Bagdhad, where his unbridled lust was a horror to behold, which it was on film, which is now being used.....

Oh, hey, I'm due back on Planet Earth.... time flies!
by mike
Friday Feb 7th, 2003 12:00 AM
I just did, and it sounds great!

give it up, killjoy. i'm moving on. i'm going to kick some racist black nationalist and racist white supremacist butt on that stupid "Reparations" thread. i like having opposing schools of wackos coming at me at the same time. Much more fun!

when the ritter file comes in, we'll find out whether it was Saddam or Clinton/Bush that framed him. May the best war criminal win!
by NPP
Friday Feb 7th, 2003 12:00 AM
Hey, Jimmy Carter won one, as did Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annon. Considering the decline of stature of those who have won lately (given the above winners), I agree he's sure to win. Ritter would be the natural choice. Although when it comes out that you like to dittle little boys, I'm sure the name "mike" will be nominated and will give Ritter the run of his life.

Stick w/ the conspiracy stuff. You're funny there. This thinking stuff just ain't your bag.
by Pat Mason
Saturday Feb 8th, 2003 9:27 PM
The case against Ritter is transparent, for sure. He is most certainly being set up. One only need remember 'Jorge Boosh's' threatenting statement, "If you aren't with us, you're against us", to realize he meant just what he said. However, let's not forget that Ritter's professional life and private life are two completely seperate issues. Ritter's report and subsequent criticism is righteous, and it doesn't matter to me if he goes home at night and makes it with a goat. That does not render his report or his criticism illegitimate. Even 'Jorge's' supporters admit he doesn't take criticism well, and it should be apparent to anyone with an IQ of more than 85 that he is not going to let inconvenient facts get in the way of his glorious crusade.
by guitry
(guitry [at] Friday Mar 28th, 2003 7:14 PM
I wish folks would quote G.W. correctly. He said: If you are not with us , you are with the terrorists" that is different than.... you are against us. The main difference is that he certanly is not saying that France is with the terrorists because she is not with us. The statement applies only to terrorist activity. This makes it interesting is that it proves that even Bush does not
believe that Saddam is a friend of Al; Quaida otherwise he would have put France as "against us"...oh Scott Ritter, I admire his balls...
by johnny larson
(gjasbro [at] Thursday May 1st, 2003 3:15 PM
Thier are two people I admire the most."scott ritter", and those who are understanding in our plite to a free righteuose and honest system. open your eye people. can't you see that our gov. is making decisions on thier own without anyones approval not even us which were the ones who put them thier.the sleeping giant has awoken in me. and, in those who are not only against the war [wars]. but who are for it as well. we must not stad up against each other. because, if we do, then it will make us far more vulnerable for us to be attacked again. not from only terrorist, but from other countries and, not to mention from among our selves. but, believe it or not, this is the psycology that comes with war , propaganda and, kaos that the gov. is probably hoping would happen. only to distract us from things that they are doing behind our backs. 'case in piont'. were is the money they found in Iraq. , why do we keep protesting and protesting to stop wars. when, they just keep ignoring us whether it be of war or schools. as bush would say, "make no mistake about it ". we "ALL OF US". are all being taken for a long ride. and, when the atom bomb drops, [who knows were] you can be sure, that he will hide 200 feet in the ground, while we must face his fate. would he care, well, you can answer that thank you. sincerely, johnny larson.
by Guerilla y cachexia y campylobacter.
Friday May 2nd, 2003 1:45 PM
Did you hear? Scott Ritter crapped in the middle of a chain resturant! He set fire to a school. He planted a stink bomb in a fire hydrant yesterday. He drools. He likes to eat grapes and watch videos of bulldozers........... Is it my business? Should I invest any amount of time wondering about it? Should I care?
NO, I don't, I just watch the media turn peoples brains into styrofoam packaging for fun. The laugh is getting old. The humor is gone. Markett researched, bought and sold opinions, bought and sold people. Mind your own business? No way, it's just to easy and fulfilling to watch the media rip people, rape people.... in the name of our freedom. Wow, that's comforting isn't it, freedom of the press, freedom to be manipulated by the press. People hear, see, and believe what they want to. It doesn't matter what's right-wrong-good-bad, it's all about what makes your ego/interests/beliefs happy. It's no surprise to me that Ritter is being targetted, if you've ever seen his film or just seen him speak(provided you can hear and see and think somewhat critically) then you might be able to pick up on certain things. I'll not tell you what they are, those are my opinions, but personally I don't really trust him, BUT , I trust our current smirking lying president + cabinet about as far as I could throw all of them together, loaded onto a freighter! This is starting to look like any other falling civilization that history had the luxury of jotting down for us. Or maybe it's just the general falling of civilization itself. Scott Ritter being slandered, a microcosm, a tiny little window to view how easy people can control each other, exploiting weakness, while the whole body, the whole system, is weak, on it's last leg.
by The point is
Friday May 2nd, 2003 2:38 PM
if they can manipulate Ritter, they can sure as hell manipulate you! Beware, Big Brother's holding the cards, they got your records, credit cards and shit. AND not only that, but he was once one of them, of course, that made it easier. Special forces, intellegence, now he's a fall guy. Anybody remember MLK? Bobby Kennedy? JFK?
Those men went out with bullets, but before it resorts to that, they'll always try to hit people where they think it will hurt them. Some have an achilles heel with a price tag on it. Some with sex. But you rarely hear about all the pawns that are used to bring people down. They might get mentioned on a tv series or docudrama, history 101, primetime tv. Doesn't look good for Ritter, but at least they haven't shot him. Maybe stabbed him in the back a few times already. He made his choices, they ate him alive, they want to you soak it up, it is what it is. Peones take sides, the rest either don't care, or don't know.
by johnny larson
Friday May 2nd, 2003 3:24 PM
fact no.1
since the 1st world war,the korean war, vietnam war, panama canal, gulf war and, the iraq war. in all these wars, thier were two reasons why we involved
ourselves in these conflicts. first, world power [dominance]. the second, was, and still is [that old cliche'] for the oil . yes, you may say, not again. well, that's what I said, when the first words of war was mentioned, NOT AGAIN!
you can be glad to know, that, this was all ready in the makings before 9/11 came about .unfortunately,
I know it's hard to swallow, what I am about to say, but, the events that lead to 9/11 were only a prelude of things to have transpired. it's what the government would call a sacrifice. for the "step up to world power."
in a few simple words, I'll explain.
now that we are in Iraq and have 85% of power, our government could not wait to get thier hands on the oil. well, surprise,surprise,surprise, we are not only calling the shots on thier access of oil, but , as we speak, the oil comming out of iraq, is being pumped to isreal. the Iraqi enemy .but, the U.S. allies. you talk about a slap in the face for the iraqi people, that are not only without, water, provisions and, not to mention, a gov. that should have been formed , before this ever transpired. [the war that is]. they're a victim of circumstances.
fact no.2 when you speak against the gov. , free speach is no longer an issue. they will slander your name to the full extent .against the law . so, scott ritter may have saw it coming . but, not to that extent. fact no. 3 you know nothing about weapons inspections. I know nothing about weapons inspections. not even the president knows nothing about weapons inspections [ let alone, anything at all, for that matter. the money got him thier . not his brains. if he has any.] anyways, I think I've said what i nave to say. it's only my opinion RIGHT! well, if it is, then you better watch the news and, listen to K.P.F.K. radio. you can learn the truth and, understand clearly the issues that faces mine and your future. and, hopefully, not or fears. thank you

sincerely, johnny larson
by MoCrash
(sportguy [at] Sunday Jun 1st, 2003 6:30 AM
Whether or not Ritter engaged in some low-grade misdemeanor is irrelevent to the veracity of his statements regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Sure, he could have been framed, but that, too, is beside the point. Consider that the allegations came three years after his service as UN weapons inspector and CIA operative. Further, there is no evidence that he perjured himself in the judicial process against him (in fact, he owns up to the public record, all upon which he can legally comment), indicating that his previous statements regarding the weapons inspections have validity.
by mike
Sunday Jun 1st, 2003 10:31 AM
Yo, where are all the Ritter-haters NOW THAT RITTER HAS BEEN COMPLETELY VINDICATED? No weapons of mass destruction (until the U.S. plants them). HE CALLED IT, AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE TAUNTERS TO STEP FORWARD AND TAKE THEIR MEDICINE!!!!!
by jbusch
Monday Jun 2nd, 2003 7:09 PM
"...Doesn't look good for Ritter, but at least they haven't shot him..."

Are you suggesting the Governement assassinated Bobby Kennedy? As I recall, he was killed by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian "activist" who disagreed with Bobby's stand supporting Israel. How inconvenient for your "argument".

Ritter is a liar, at least once. You can not be so strongly on both sides of an issue within a few years span without your credibility being questioned. He was lying then, or he is lying now. Take your pick.
by !-sd
Monday Jun 2nd, 2003 7:39 PM
the people in charge are so fucking arrogant and so fucking under estimate the average joess intelligence that they out right expose their lies for all to witness.

Take for example, blubber-mouth, paul wolfowitz.

When Ashley Banfields' rediculous news program was still aired by msnbc, she was granted a tour of the pentagram, by none other than mr. bluber mouth.

A few weeks prior to her interview, former bush press spokesperson- ari fliesher, admitted that the out line of the invasion into Afghanistan was pre-planeed Months before the fateful date of nine- eleven.

Ashley none-chalantly mentioned the administrations' admission regarding that matter when mr. blubermouth uttered that "had nine eleven not occured, the administration would have been unable to proceed with its geo- political goals in the poppy fields region"...

Fast forward to a little over two months after the uncalled for invasion into Iraq and mr. blubermouth opens his mouth once more when he stated that "his administration made up the allegations that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to society, to boost moral for the impending war".

It is a tragic day when the only truth teller throughout this fiasco was none other than a former marine and an inspector, scott
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 212.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network