PDA

View Full Version : In Shifting Sands/back to Iraq



patfromlogan
18th June 03, 10:07 AM
Haven't seen any politics here for a while. Maybe this will get Vargas to post? After all Ritter is a 6'4" ex-marine, a man's man kind of manly man.

I saw the video last night and I think it was good. Here is a review that covers the topic (including Ritter's 'about face') better than I could.

In Shifting Sands

By Paul Byrnes
March 27 2003

Directed by Scott Ritter
Written by Scott Ritter, Scott Rosann and Alex Cohn

Does Saddam Hussein have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? As of day six of Gulf War 2, none had been found, at least as far as Western media outlets knew. Scott Ritter says they won't find them either, because the Iraqis don't have them.

Ritter was a weapons inspector in Iraq with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) from 1991 to 1998, when he resigned, accusing the US and the UN Security Council of lack of support for UNSCOM's work in Iraq. He claimed the US was manipulating the inspection process for purely American goals, robbing UNSCOM of its credibility.

In this documentary, completed in 2001, he accuses the former head of UNSCOM, the Australian diplomat Richard Butler, of deliberately provoking a confrontation with Iraq in late 1998, to provide a trigger for renewed US bombing. He says he and Butler attended a meeting in early 1998 with the US ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson, just before Ritter was due to return to Iraq. At that meeting, Ritter claims, Butler drew a line on a blackboard and told him he had to provoke a confrontation "by this date ... so the US can start bombing by this date". This bombing was to be in March, but did not take place. Ritter resigned in August, and a confrontation later that year did lead to a renewed US/British bombing campaign.

Butler has repeatedly denied Ritter's claims of collusion with Washington. He described Ritter's book Endgame, published in 1999, which details more examples of Butler's alleged collusion, as "riddled with errors", but declined to be interviewed for this film.

One of the problems for US government critics of the film is Ritter's pedigree. He spent 12 years in the US military, specialising in intelligence and weapons inspection. He spent two years as an arms control inspector in Russia, and was assigned to General Norman Schwarzkopf's staff as an intelligence officer responsible for tracking Scud missiles during Gulf War 1. He was recruited into UNSCOM in 1991 by its then head, the Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus, and charged with setting up an intelligence unit within UNSCOM. He says in the film that the US opposed this unit, because it wanted to control the flow of intelligence to UNSCOM.

The film includes dramatic footage of inspectors trying to enter sensitive sites in Iraq, and continually being delayed or threatened by armed Iraqis. Some of this dates from after Ritter resigned, so he was not present, but he includes an interview with the Australian inspector who replaced him, Roger Hill. There are interviews also with some of the Iraqis who stopped both men: the Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, and Amer Rashid, "the father of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program".

Ritter does not claim that the Iraqis never had weapons of mass destruction, but says that by 1995 UNSCOM had done its work and destroyed 90-95per cent of Iraq's WMD capability. His main allegation is that the US refused to allow UNSCOM to declare Iraq disarmed, and kept insisting it look again. The CIA repeatedly offered new information, but inspectors found nothing. "There was no smoking gun."

One problem for Ritter's credibility is that his letter of resignation in 1998 said: "The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required." A second is that the film was 80per cent funded by a wealthy Iraqi-American businessman, Shakir Alkafajii, which led the FBI to investigate. Ritter doesn't mention his funding in the film - what film does? - but he says in a slim volume he co-wrote (War On Iraq - What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know) that he told the FBI he would terminate the film if they found any evidence that Shakir Alkafajii was using the film to gain favours in Baghdad, or that the Iraqi Government had funnelled money to the film.

"Not only did they fail to find any dirt on the money, but after ... I showed it to [the FBI] they said it was pretty darned good."

As a film critic, I'd say it's pretty basic and at times confusing. As a citizen, I'd say it's full of useful information that you might not otherwise get from your television.





Edited by - patfromlogan on June 18 2003 10:08:45

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:31 PM
Meida Monitor

Is Scott Ritter Credible?
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
September 12, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Ritter, the former Marine who resigned his position as UN weapons inspector in Iraq in August 1998, has been seen frequently on television criticizing the Bush administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and must be overthrown. Ritter is presented or quoted as an authority on this subject. For example, on Labor Day, former CIA director James Woolsey told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that clearly Iraq has "substantial chemical and bacteriological weapons," Blitzer responded, "Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector, he was there. He doesn’t believe it."

Scott Ritter was there from the end of the Gulf War until 1998 to help enforce the cease-fire agreement and the UN resolution that prohibited Iraq from possessing or developing weapons of mass destruction. His former boss, Richard Butler, who headed the UN inspection team, recalled later that Ritter resigned because Saddam was not allowing the UN inspectors to do their job. Ritter himself testified that under Saddam’s direct orders, the Iraqi government had lied to the Commission about its weapons stockpiles and that "Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security."

Ritter at the time blamed the Clinton administration, saying they feared a confrontation with Iraq. He criticized it for refusing to support the inspection process with a legitimate use of force. He said that since April of ‘98, "we had not been allowed to do these tasks, largely because of pressure placed upon the Special Commission by administration officials."

Ritter has made an about face. He now says "Iraq has been disarmed fundamentally. Their weapons programs have been eliminated. Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbors. It does not threaten its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not threaten the world." This is the line he was taking as a guest on Phil Donahue’s first show on MSNBC last July. Senator James Inhofe, the other guest, charged that what Ritter was saying was the opposite of the testimony he had given the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ritter tried to deny it, but the Senator read from a copy of the transcript, proving that Ritter had just contradicted what he had said under oath. That should have destroyed Ritter’s credibility, but Ritter keeps getting time on TV and being cited as an authority on CNN.

We hate to say it, but Scott Ritter has apparently sold out. He received $400,000 from an Iraqi-American businessman with close ties to Saddam for the purpose of producing a documentary called "In Shifting Sands." The Weekly Standard described it as a film that "would chronicle the weapons-inspection process" and quoted Ritter as saying it would "de-demonize" Iraq.

Ritter was welcomed into Iraq in July 2000 to conduct interviews, and he was praised on the official Iraqi Web site. Ritter claims the 90-minute film, which as far as we are know hasn’t aired anywhere, is an attempt to be objective, but he said "The U.S. will definitely not like this film."


Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:36 PM
Baghdad tried to bribe
Scott Ritter with gold
Documents reveal expensive gifts for ex-weapons inspector's family

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 4, 2003
6:03 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector who was arrested for reportedly seeking sex from teen-age girls he met online, was targeted for bribery with gold by Iraq, reports the London Telegraph.

http://209.17.95.115/images2/Scott.gif
Scott Ritter mug shot
(courtesy WNYT-TV)

The papers found in the bombed headquarters of Iraq's intelligence services, indicate the cost of the gifts was approved at the highest level in an attempt to develop "strong relations with them [Ritter's family] that affect positively on our relations with him."

The documents say the gifts should be offered through an intermediary, named as Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman and close associate of Ritter, states the Telegraph.

Signed by the then director-general of Iraqi intelligence, they purport to reveal close links between al-Khafaji and Iraqi intelligence, and suggest the regime was making available substantial funds to offer him. Both Ritter and al-Khafaji have made it clear they never received such gifts or money.

"Be careful how you interpret those documents," Ritter told the paper. "I would hate to read that I had taken Iraqi money, which I did not. Perhaps you can find documents relating to the meeting I eventually had with Tariq Aziz, in which I told him I would take no money, and he replied, 'We respect you because you do not have your hand out,'" Ritter said.

The "Scott Ritter Project" was reportedly found in a file marked "Hosting in hotels 1997-2000," including details of Iraqi intelligence guests who had traveled to Baghdad. The records were in the same folder as reports of a 1998 visit to Baghdad by an envoy of Osama bin Laden.

Dated between July 18 and Sept. 14, 2000, they appear to record a trip to Baghdad made by Ritter, al-Khafaji and a film crew. Their visit took place shortly before Ritter raised £250,000 to make a controversial documentary about Iraq which criticized U.S. policy toward Saddam's regime.

The Telegraph says Ritter formed a partnership with al-Khafaji to finance the film entitled "Shifting Sands" which, according to Ritter, "proved" Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In an 2001 interview with the New York Times, Ritter said none of al-Khafaji's funding came from Saddam. Of the £250,000 spent on the film, he said only £26,250 went into his own pocket.

While he confirmed he had received money from al-Khafaji, Ritter said he had had his business associate checked by CIA "sources" via a friend who was a reporter, and was reassured.

As reported by WorldNetDaily, Ritter confirmed he was arrested in 2001 but refused to give details. He has dramatically reversed his position on Iraq's weapons threat and become an outspoken critic of the U.S., telling WorldNetDaily that President Bush should be impeached for his policy toward Baghdad.

New York media coverage indicates Ritter sought to have underage girls watch him have sex with himself in public places. The arrest record was sealed and the case reportedly dismissed, though U.S. prosecutors have since reportedly unsealed the case to see if federal charges are warranted, according to sources.


Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Phoenix
18th June 03, 03:39 PM
You know....I don't profess to be smarter than the president of the US...I'm sure he's a real bright guy, and all....

But I think there are far more important issues he should be tackling right now. Namely, NORTH KOREA. I mean, after all...they DO have WMD's and they ARE itching for an excuse to nuke the hell out of Japan.

Of course, it's only Japan. But if that's not enough for him, then how about the 47,000 USMC personnel that they have stationed there?

I think there are far more important issues at hand.

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:40 PM
CRIMENETDAILY
Ritter admits it: 'I was arrested'
Ex-weapons inspector calls sex scandal 'dead issue,' but cancels trip to Baghdad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 22, 2003
11:15 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter is finally admitting he was arrested a year and half ago by police in upstate New York, but refuses to disclose if it had anything to do with looking to meet underage girls from the Internet.

http://209.17.95.115/images2/RitterCNN2.jpg
Scott Ritter on CNN 'Newsnight'

Ritter made an appearance tonight on "CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown," but was evasive on questions dealing with reports he was caught in a police sex-sting operation.

"I was arrested in June 2001, charged with a Class B misdemeanor," said Ritter. "I stood before a judge and the case was dismissed. The file was sealed. And I certainly wish you and everyone else would respect that."

Citing legal counsel, Ritter stressed he was not going to reveal details, but questioned the timing of the revelations as he canceled his trip to Iraq due to this "distraction."

"And we should never forget that when a case is dismissed," said Ritter, "what the law says is that – by dismissing the case – it brings with it the presumption of innocence. And by sealing the file, it's designed to prevent the stigma attached with any unsubstantiated allegations from arising. So, as far as I'm concerned, as far as everyone should be concerned, this is a dead issue."

Brown responded by saying it wasn't a dead issue, as the case is starting to get more national publicity. He also challenged Ritter on the issue of the "sealing."

"Scott, we spent a fair amount of time today looking at New York law on this," said Brown. "There is nothing in a sealed case, zero, that prevents you from talking about it. The point of the seal is to protect you from the state, not to protect the state from you."

Ritter continued to elude specifics, stating the media had "turned this into a feeding frenzy."

"You are radioactive until this is cleared up," said Brown. "Until people understand what this is about, no one is going to talk to you about the things that you feel passionately about. And as uncomfortable as it may be, I submit to you that it is in your interests to explain what happened. Otherwise, Lord only knows what people will say."

"Well, Aaron, Lord only knows what people are already saying," responded Ritter. "And, frankly speaking, I have no control over that."

The CNN interview featured a series of non-committal answers, as evinced by this exchange between Ritter and the host:


BROWN: Did you ever go into an Internet chat room looking for teenage girls to have a sexual encounter of any sort with? How about that?
RITTER: Aaron, again, I have to respectfully reply by noting that I am obligated legally not to discuss matters pertaining to a

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Can you tell me, under what provision of what law are you referring to?

RITTER: Well, Aaron, you know I'm not a lawyer. And I have sought legal counsel on this. And I'm strictly abiding by legal counsel.

BROWN: So, I can dance around this a thousand ways and you're not going to tell me why you were arrested at that Burger King on that day in June. Is that right?

RITTER: Aaron, I will respond the same way, this way, until Sunday. I was arrested in June 2001, charged with a Class B misdemeanor. I stood before a judge and the case was dismissed. The file was sealed. And I certainly wish you and everyone else would respect that.

BROWN: OK. Again, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't want to talk about it.

Let's talk about the ramifications of it. It is my view, and, certainly I think as far as this program is concerned, and I think others, that you are, in a sense, radioactive, that these charges, I would submit, until they're responded to, will keep it that way.

But, in any case, in this moment, for the moment, nobody cares what you think about Iraq. You think that's why this stuff was leaked?

RITTER: Well, I have no way of knowing why this happened. But the effect is obvious. I was supposed to be on an airplane yesterday flying to Baghdad on a personal initiative that could have had great ramifications in regards to issues of war and peace.

I wish people would keep the eye on the ball here. It's about war and peace. It's about the potential of conflict with Iraq, many thousands of Americans dying. And whether you agreed with me or disagreed with me on the issue, there's no doubting – and you can't rewrite history – I was a very effective voice in the anti-war effort in the campaign to keep inspectors on the ground.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: What is stopping you from going to Baghdad?

RITTER: Well, look, what's stopping me is the reason why I'm sitting here before you, Aaron.

If I went to Baghdad and tried to talk responsibly about issues of war and peace, this issue would have come up. And it would have been a distraction and it would have actually been a disservice. There are people in Baghdad right now pursuing the initiative that I started. And I want to give them every chance of success. I don't want to provide any distractions.

BROWN: Well, one way or another, I hope all this stuff gets cleared up and you can get back to talking about the issues you care about. But, again, I'm not quite sure how that's going to happen.

Last September, Ritter became the first American to address the Iraqi National Assembly. He then urged Baghdad to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq, something to which Saddam agreed shortly after Ritter's departure.

But Ritter started making headlines of a different sort this week after newspaper and television reports from his hometown region of Albany, N.Y., indicated he was arrested in 2001 for trying to meet underage girls in part of a police sex-sting operation.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News originally reported Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, 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 business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl with whom he had chatted online. Instead, he reportedly was met by officers, who released him without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

An attorney for Ritter confirmed that the ex-inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar.

Though Ritter originally told the Daily Gazette the paper had him mistaken for someone else, the local NBC television affiliate WNYT produced video of a mug shot of Ritter after the arrest.

"If it's not him, it's either his clone or a twin," the station's news director, Paul Conti, told WorldNetDaily.

Conti said the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order "to have her watch him have sex with himself."

Police reportedly charged Ritter with attempted endangerment of a child, a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in the county jail.

Sources said Ritter's attorney and a town court judge agreed to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal.

That generally means the case is on hold for six months, and if the defendant doesn't get into trouble, the case is usually dismissed and the record sealed. The adjournment means neither an admission of guilt or innocence.

Though network news coverage of the case has been scant, Ritter has been mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, heard on over 600 stations.

"If I were Scott Ritter, I would just come up with a 'Hey, I was just doing research here.' ... The Pete Townshend reply," joked Limbaugh.

"You know we've all wondered," he added, "why it is that Scott Ritter has done a 180 on what he originally saw as a weapons inspector and then the last couple years, it's like 'Nah, the Iraqis don't even have the capability to make a thumbtack, much less a chemical weapon.'"

Ritter is still planning to give discussions about the crisis with Iraq here in America.

He's slated to be at Washington College in Chestertown, Md., on Jan. 30 for a free discussion which is open to the public.

He's also scheduled to give a free speech Feb. 12 at Schenectady County Community College in New York. There are no plans to cancel Ritter's appearance, for which he'll be paid $4,000, SCCC spokesperson Heather Meaney told the Times Union.

"We researched him and decided to have him here in February," she said.

As WorldNetDaily reported Saturday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," Ritter told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said via telephone as he drove from his upstate New York home to appear on Fox News. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."


Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:42 PM
CRIMENETDAILY
Ritter's attorney
confirms arrest
TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 20, 2003
6:52 p.m. Eastern


By Sherrie Gossett
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

An attorney for Scott Ritter confirmed that the outspoken former U.N. weapons inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Delmar.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.

Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

Colonie police Deputy Chief Steven Heider told WorldNetDaily that he cannot confirm the allegations, explaining that if they were true, the details would have been sealed by a court order.

"A sealing order is exactly what it says it is," he said. "We're not allowed to talk about anything under sealed court order, and I'm not saying that one exists."

However, WND has learned that NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany has video of a mug shot of Ritter after the arrest.

"If it's not him, it's either his clone or a twin," the station's news director, Paul Conti, told WND.

WorldNetDaily reported earlier that WNYT said it had footage of the arrest, but Conti clarified that the station has video of the scene, shot after the arrest.

The news director said the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order "to have her watch him have sex with himself."

"Anyone who went to the Burger King that day could confirm the details of that event and report that a sting operation was underway that involved a decoy officer posing as a 16-year-old girl," Conti said.

Callers to today's Rush Limbaugh radio program brought up the issue of Ritter's arrest, to which the conservative talk host responded:

"If I were Scott Ritter, I would just come up with a 'Hey, I was just doing research here.' ... The Pete Townshend reply."

"You know we've all wondered," added Limbaugh, "why it is that Scott Ritter has done a 180 on what he originally saw as a weapons inspector and then the last couple years, it's like 'Nah, the Iraqis don't even have the capability to make a thumbtack, much less a chemical weapon.'"

Still, Limbaugh downplayed the incident.

"I'm surprised that this bothers anybody," he said. "I mean look at these reality TV shows out there, everything going on, 'Bachelorette,' 'Joe Millionaire' ... we had oral sex in the Oval Office ... I'm just surprised [at] the selective application of morality, that we seem to have certain things bother us and other things don't."

As WorldNetDaily reported Saturday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said via telephone as he drove from his upstate New York home to appear on Fox News. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."

Ritter's views against the conflict with Iraq could be in jeopardy depending on the amount of national media attention his arrest receives, said Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University.

"When you're a talking head, your whole reason for being has got to be the image of anything you represent," Thompson told the Times-Union. "If the story starts getting to be a big issue, there will be talking heads making their careers on the end of this talking head."


Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Edited by - Bolverk on June 18 2003 15:43:59

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:43 PM
CRIMENETDAILY
Reports claim Ritter arrested in sex sting
Does ex-weapons inspector pressing impeachment have own legal trouble?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 19, 2003
7:11 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was secretly arrested and prosecuted in New York a year and a half ago after allegedly being caught in an Internet sex sting, say law enforcement sources in published reports.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter was arrested in June 2001 for allegedly having an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. It turns out that "girl" was really an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ritter lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, and was reportedly arrested by police in Colonie, N.Y.

The case was apparently kept so secret, the head local prosecutor did not even know it existed.

The Daily Gazette reports Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week when he finally learned of the matter.

"I was shocked and angered to learn that the case had been disposed of by one of my assistant district attorneys without consulting me," Clyne told the paper. "Any arguably sensitive case should be brought to my attention."

Sources told the Gazette that Ritter's attorney and a town court judge agreed to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal.

That generally means the case is on hold for six months, and if the defendant doesn't get into trouble, the case is usually dismissed and the record sealed. The adjournment means neither an admission of guilt or innocence. The charge was reportedly a class B misdemeanor.

For his part, Ritter claims he knows nothing of the arrest.

"Sorry, you must have the wrong person," said Ritter when contacted at his home by the Daily Gazette.

Ritter's legal name is William Scott Ritter, and the town attorney's office in Colonie reportedly confirmed that an arrest record for Ritter did exist, though it declined any further disclosure, saying it was exempt.

As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old former Marine told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."

WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Ritter via telephone as he drove from his New York home to appear on Fox News. Throughout the interview, he contended that media have consistently missed his primary concern regarding the proposed military strike against Iraq.

Ritter said the issue is the abrogation of the rule of law, which he views as setting the U.S. up for a particularly nasty potential scenario – U.S. troops cornered in Iraq, subject to chemical attack, which then prompts the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

"The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into such a situation.

"What's wrong with diplomacy, what's wrong with inspectors, what's wrong with the rule of law?" he asked.

WorldNetDaily asked Ritter whether he agreed with the contention that Bush's foreign policy constituted a violation of the United Nations and Nuremberg charters.

Ritter reiterated that the U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which "stipulates that war is rejected as a means to resolve disputes and conflicts," although he allowed that there are exceptions, as "when the collective, the U.N. Security Council, finds a situation exists that threatens international peace. Then under chapter seven of the charter, it can be resolved by use of force."

Still, Ritter does not find the current situation in Iraq to meet this criteria, and therefore views the idea of a pre-emptive strike as unconstitutional and a violation of American law.

"It has no grounds in legality," he said.

"This is a constitutional issue," he continued. "I think there can be no doubt his policy is a violation of the Constitution, except that constitutional lawyers will say that judicial system will not get involved in matters of national security … There are interpretation issues – what are the limits of executive authority? … I think that it's not so much the legality of his actions. I view it as being unconstitutional … I'm sure many will say the president has these authorities regarding national security."

Ritter also said that impeachment and indictment were legitimate issues.

"What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying to the American people," he said. "I believe the president has lied to the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the American people.

"And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I think the president should be held accountable for this judicially," Ritter stated.

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," said Ritter. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

WND also asked Ritter about comments he made in an interview with William Pitt, appearing in the book "War on Iraq: What Team Bush doesn't want you to know."

In that interview, Ritter said that "Donald Rumsfeld was politically dead. No one thought of Donald Rumsfeld as having any potential. Paul Wolfowitz was seen as a raving lunatic of the far right. Richard Perle is not called 'The Prince of Darkness' without cause."

Ritter characterized the leaders as "sniping from the fringes," and said "suddenly they're running the show," adding that for this reason, these are "extremely dangerous times."

WND asked Ritter whether he viewed these people as having taken this turn since taking office, or always having been that way.

"Well, they were always this way," he said. "Wolfowitz was always a very dangerous man. He is a walking affront to the Constitution of the U.S. He is a walking affront to international law. The same with Richard Perle . He was openly boastful how President Bush has no other choice but go to war because he's committed too much political capital."

Ritter concluded, "If Richard Perle thinks [that's] a reason to go to war then he might as well remove the American flag from outside his building and put on a swastika and call himself what he is, which is a Nazi. This is the rule of law, not about going to war for political convenience of any single individual."

WorldNetDaily then asked Ritter why, if these political figures were always this way, he voted them into power by voting for President Bush. The former U.N. inspector argued that he didn't vote for them, just for Bush, adding that Gore was a "known commodity – a liar," and that he had actually initially supported Sen. John McCain.


Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Bolverk
18th June 03, 03:45 PM
Scott Ritter is not what I would call credible. But, after the fiasco created by Bill Clintons perjury on the stand, I can see why people would listen to him. They are plain gullible.

Sincerely,


Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Freddy
18th June 03, 04:37 PM
Just because Ritter was charged witha criminal offence it doesnt mean that what he says are fabricated.

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law"

elipson
18th June 03, 06:38 PM
Almost sounds like a smear campaign.

And its' not like Bush or any of his administration is that credible either. Like the plagarised report to the UN about WMD, that was nearly a decade out of date.

Bolverk
19th June 03, 11:56 AM
Then explain his 180 degree turn from his stance in 1998, while heir Clinton was in office.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

patfromlogan
19th June 03, 07:44 PM
Then explain his 180 degree turn from his stance in 1998, while heir Clinton was in office.

That is the issue. Are you sure he's not a martial artist, Bolverk? I thought all perverts were mas. Maybe if you paste the same accusations three of four more times Kungfools will find out he teaches TKD.

Vargas
19th June 03, 11:24 PM
Okay, okay, I'll post already. Jeez, you guys are pushy :)

Scott Ritter - Never met him, can't really tell you anything other than what's already been posted. I've seen a couple of interviews on TV and haven't been knocked over by his sincerity, but hey, maybe I'm just jaded. The whole sex crime thing cracks me up, though. I have a mental image of Scott Ritter standing in a bowling alley, dressed in a purple jumpsuit with a hairnet, yelling "Don't fuck with the Jesus"!

WMD - I was deployed to the SWA last fall, I got all the 'cool guy' intel briefs, saw all the classified photo stuff from Iraq. If Iraq didn't have WMD, they sure went to a lot of trouble to make us think they did. Shit, I was in Kuwait in 1998 when Clinton almost invaded Iraq thinking there was WMD. Didn't hear any squawking back then, though, especially from Robert 'The Grand Kleagle' Byrd. Either way, Saddam and his cronies were assholes, fuck 'em. Yeah, Iraq is still kind of a mess right now but I'm willing to be a little patient. Rome wasn't built in a day (wasn't destroyed in a day, either, but that's a different tale). Last point. Everyone screeches about how 'researching WMD' isn't the same as actually 'having WMD' and doesn't count. Well, excuse the fuck out of me but this isn't an episode of 'Law and Order'. What the hell are we supposed to do, wait until we have iron-clad, irrefutable proof and THEN do something about it? Shit, by then it would be too late. Then all the fuckers calling for impeachment would be blasting the Prez for not doing something sooner. You can't have it both ways. If I was the Prez, I think I'd err on the side of caution and jumped on this thing sooner rather than later.

What I think is really going on is some people's personal dislike for Bush clouding their view of the Big Picture. So you think Bush is an idiot and he stole the last election. Fine, whatever, I think he's kind of goofy myself and his steel tariff decision, not was to mention the latest tax cut, was stupidity incarnate. But give some credit to the guy for the way things have gone in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, what do people want him to do, pull everyone out of the region and let it completely collapse? I swear to God, being the CINC is like driving a school bus packed with backseat drivers. Even the one's I didn't particularly care for (Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Clinton) still got a little respect from me for being the world's biggest potshot target. Have a little perspective is all I'm saying.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

grego
20th June 03, 12:32 PM
I like pizza. PIZZA! PIZZA! PIZZA!

It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone underwear.

Bolverk
20th June 03, 01:13 PM
Then explain his 180 degree turn from his stance in 1998, while heir Clinton was in office.

That is the issue. Are you sure he's not a martial artist, Bolverk? I thought all perverts were mas. Maybe if you paste the same accusations three of four more times Kungfools will find out he teaches TKD.

I like that, I split my side.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

elipson
20th June 03, 04:23 PM
As a fact, I liked Bush. I thought he handled Afgan like a pro, and was great leader after 9/11. I didn't start really hating him until this whole Iraq thing came up. Even if his intentions are honorable, he still has fucked things up pretty bad. How do you go from receiving an article 6 order from NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all, basically saying NATO would be there to help in the fight against terrorism), and having offers of sympathy/military support from almost every country in the world, to now be considered the bad guy of the world with the international community completely split about the US?


Bush squandered all the sympathy and assistance brought to the US in wake of 9/11, and for that reason he's a moron.

Not too mention he's fucking over his own economy, while giving the rich folk more money.

Thank god I'm Canadian, er, that is, Soviet Canuckistanian :)

Vargas
20th June 03, 05:26 PM
Yeah, allowing Don Rumsfeld to be your front-man with Europe and Asia was one of the most fucked-up things I've ever witnessed from a sitting President. Richard Nixon might have been a crook and a royal bastard but he was the friggin' man when it came to high stakes international diplomacy. Even the first Bush was pretty skilled at coalition building and all that other foreign policy stuff. Whatever George W. learned from his dad, the 'dealing with allies and potential friends' part must have been skipped.

"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

poet
20th June 03, 05:48 PM
elipson and Vargas,
what do you think it will take to correct the apparent diplomacy faux pas'
or, to get more support or help from the international community?

"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right."
Ashleigh Brilliant

Phoenix
20th June 03, 06:06 PM
How about that sacking of the National Archive and Library in Baghdad, huh? Remember how outraged everybody got when the Taliban destroyed those Buddhist statues? Now imagine if there were American soldiers 50 feet away watching the Taliban setting the charges and doing nothing. That's what happened in Baghdad, folks. Records, artifacts, documents that go back to the beginning of human civilization, gone. Destroyed. Burned. No amount of money can ever bring them back. Irreplaceable parts of the human story, vanished forever.

Meanwhile, if you're watching CNN, everything's going great, with a few minor wrinkles. Somehow these people have gotten the idea the Americans only care about oil! Crazy! According to the story, these people have been addled by Saddam's propaganda; otherwise how could they believe such wild nonsense? Seeing the Americans protect the Oil Ministry and the Interior Ministry while leaving the rest of the city to burn couldn't have anything to do with it, of course...

Did the US intentionally allow the museum to be sacked? Who knows? I sure as hell don't. But in fact, it's even scarier if it didn't happen intentionaly, if it happened because the Americans were just too dumb and clueless to prevent it. It's unbelievable how shocked and stunned and caught flat-footed Americans were by the notion that they would be responsible for upholding order once they knocked over Saddam. They didn't have a massive corps of military police and civil engineers ready to jump in and start repairing the damage. There's no sign they thought to bring in additional medics that they could have deployed to the various hospitals (cuz I'm pretty sure they would have trumpeted the hell out of it if they had). And, centrally, it never seemed to occur to them that all of their soldiers are now going to have to become the police in a world where they don't speak the language, there's no legal authority, and people are still shooting at them.

The military says that's not their job, but in this most foully political war, that is precisely their job, unsuited as they are to perform it. They've placed themselves in a trap where very quickly the Iraqis are going to start getting angry at them and they're going to start getting angry right back. Imagine how Iraqis are going to feel about US soliders manning everybody's favorite fact of life, the checkpoint. Soon resentment sets in: "We came here to free them, and they're spitting on us! Fuck these people!" Hell, it would be a tough situation for anybody, requiring an unusual amount of patience, grace and humility. Are those the words that pop into anyone's mind when they think "American grunt"? I know that many of them are strong, good, brave men, heroes all, sure, whatever, but let's not kid ourselves; lots of these guys are aggressive, angry assholes, too. They start shooting at protestors (already happening), protestors start shooting back... it's not going to be increasing the peace.

The smart thing would to let the UN back in, get some peacekeepers in there, mabye find some guys who speak Arabic. That would be start, a nudge towards legitimacy. If BushCo refuses to do the smart thing --and let's face it, their record stinks-- and insists on full-bore occupying Iraq, I don't see any way out of the inevitable escalation of resentment and violence.

On the other hand, who knows what the hell's going to happen?


Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated. - Geroge Bernard Shaw

elipson
20th June 03, 07:04 PM
Poet, thats a good question. I'm no politics major (maybe someday), so my opinion may not be worth much, but I have a few ideas.

One thing that pissed many ppl off, myself included, is the lack of UN legitimization. Many countries around the world see the UN as the great protector of sorts, and quite frankly it is. They aren't controlled by business politics, and they dont bend under the will of the powerful countries. The way the US completely ignored the UN in the final decision to go made it seem to many countries that the US was above the law; that they were somehow better than all the other countries of the world. Now I'm sure every country feels this way in secret, but you can't just act like that in international diplomacy. You have to make ppl believe you care, even if you dont. A MAJOR step in making the US look more accountable and responsible would be to let the UN back into Iraq, both in a weapons expector role, and an organizational role. This would make it seem like the US actually cares what the world thinks, even if they don't.

Secondly, Bush should drop the whole war hawk attitude in international relations. It made sense when they were fighting Al-Queada, but now its just stupid. Everybody likes peace, nobody likes a war hawk. Bush makes it seem like a peaceful situation would be unacceptable. He needs to stop trying to scare Syria and Iran; both these countries are fairly different than Iraq. I think one of his biggest mistakes was his axis of evil speech. He basically gave a list of countries he was going to attack. IMHO, In response to this speech, North Korea kick-started in Nuke program in a race to get them before the states could attack. Iran took the opposite approach and tried to co-operate with the States as much as possible in its terrorist investigations. Iran has deported several hundred Terrorist suspects to the Yanks for investigation, but you never hear bush mention that.

The WMD allegations may be Bushes undoing. I'm sure you know WAY more than I do Vargas, and I usually believe you in military issues, but everyone is still waiting for the evidence. If they were so sure they were there, then where are they? You have a point about developing WMD, but one or two trailers, that MAY have contained dangerous material, doesn't really constitute a serious threat. There are likely science classrooms all over North America with more deadly stuff than has been found over there.

Vargas
20th June 03, 08:19 PM
Fixing faux pas's, hmm, that's a tricky one. Well, first things first. Colin Powell, our intrepid Secrectary of State, needs to pack his bags and plan on being gone for the rest of 2003. Prior to Gulf War I, the Sec. of State, James Baker, pretty much lived on the road, talking to allies and neutrals alike and giving things the personal touch they deserve. This time? Powell made one trip before hostilities and that was a one-week swing through Europe. That's not going to cut it.

Step Two - Bush goes down to the nearest pet store, buys a muzzle and straps it to Donald Rumsfeld's head. Seriously, everytime he opens his mouth on the international scene, something stupid falls out. Yes, it is satisfying, in a petty way, to belittle the French. Does that mean a high-ranking political appointee should do that right before a major war? Rumsfeld needs to leave the international politiking to Powell and the State Department and stick to 'transforming' the U.S. military, whatever the hell THAT means.

Step Three - The last thing that Bush needs to do is get the Israeli/Palestinian peace initiative back on track. That is such a hot issue in the Arab world. Bush really needs to do something, Christ, ANYTHING, rather than the present policy of watching while Gaza and the West Bank slide into total freakin' anarchy. If the U.S. loses the international campaign against Islamic Extremism, the debacle unfolding in Israel will be a key player, if not the primary cause.

As for WMD, all I can say is, 'Stay Tuned'. Intel is a field that is notorious for giving vague and conflicting information. Iraq is no different from any other conflict. All the pieces are there, we just have to put them together. The Wastrel can talk to this far better than I can.


"Go cry about it Vargas. Aren't you late for your shift at McDonald's?"

poet
23rd June 03, 10:18 AM
Fixing faux pas's, hmm, that's a tricky one. Well, first things first. Colin Powell, our intrepid Secrectary of State, needs to pack his bags and plan on being gone for the rest of 2003. Prior to Gulf War I, the Sec. of State, James Baker, pretty much lived on the road, talking to allies and neutrals alike and giving things the personal touch they deserve. This time? Powell made one trip before hostilities and that was a one-week swing through Europe. That's not going to cut it.

I am not really a fan of either party but I always liked Baker and I like Powell.
I agree totally with the spending time listening to countries.


Step Two - Bush goes down to the nearest pet store, buys a muzzle and straps it to Donald Rumsfeld's head. Seriously, everytime he opens his mouth on the international scene, something stupid falls out. Yes, it is satisfying, in a petty way, to belittle the French. Does that mean a high-ranking political appointee should do that right before a major war? Rumsfeld needs to leave the international politiking to Powell and the State Department and stick to 'transforming' the U.S. military, whatever the hell THAT means.

If you keep making this much sense I will have to think highly of you.


Step Three - The last thing that Bush needs to do is get the Israeli/Palestinian peace initiative back on track. That is such a hot issue in the Arab world. Bush really needs to do something, Christ, ANYTHING, rather than the present policy of watching while Gaza and the West Bank slide into total freakin' anarchy. If the U.S. loses the international campaign against Islamic Extremism, the debacle unfolding in Israel will be a key player, if not the primary cause.

My feelings, something needs to be done yes but What?
Most attempts have been short term and if anything in the world begged for some long term solutions this does.
I don't have a solution but you are right something needs to be done.
Maybe give them all Chinese finger puzzles?

"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right."
Ashleigh Brilliant

elipson
23rd June 03, 05:58 PM
Vargas is smart.

I really like Powell, he's a smart guy. After 9/11 he was one of the pres advisor telling Bush not to go into Iraq, I think he's just been put in a bad spot.

They need to get Sharone out of Israel! He's too violent. If he re-invades Palestine and Gaza everytime some asshole blows himself up there will never be a peace. Yes, every country should defend itself, but sometimes you have to swallow your pride for a greater good.

And getting into a flame war with the French was just stupid.
Freedom fries anyone?