Ritter recounts Kerry’s “pious rectitude” in attacking President Bush on the intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, but then drops this blockbuster:
Kerry had a chance to stand up and say, “It’s all BS.” Instead, he voted for the liberation and is only now changing his tune. This is reminiscent of then-Senator Al Gore selling his vote for the first Gulf War to then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole because Dole promised him more TV time to grandstand. Ritter states: “John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace.”
Ritter writes that when he lobbied Congress for a review of the nation’s Iraq policy in April 2000, he spoke to Kerry who asked him to put claims of “hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD” in writing. Ritter had the Arms Control Association send “several copies” to Kerry, then sent one of his own. The senator
Remember Scott Ritter, Peacenik Pederast…
Headline: Ritter’s attorney confirms arrest
Source: WorldNetDaily
Subhead: TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting
Date: January 20, 2003
By: Sherrie Gossett
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.”
Headline: Liberals Meet Unexpected Resistance
Subhead: Though many had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war.
Date: May 1, 2003
Source: TownHall
By: Ann Coulter
Though many had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war. Predictions that liberals would have an easy time embarrassing President Bush have met unexpected resistance. They’re still looking for the bad news they said was there. Experts believe the media’s quagmire results from severely reduced troops. The left’s current force is less than half the size of the coalition media that undermined the Vietnam War.
It’s been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. On Sunday, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it’s Day Four of the New York Times’ refusal to mention these documents.
Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein’s pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.
At least Tariq Aziz knows he lost the war. American liberals are still hoping for a comeback. But the war was so successful, they don’t have any arguments left. They can’t even sound busy. In their usual parody of patriotism, liberals are masters of the long-winded statement that amounts to nothing. They can’t go on TV and say nothing. But all they have are some broken figurines to complain about.
They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn’t happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn’t happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn’t happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn’t happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn’t happen.
Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken ? a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery. We’re not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable.
At least we finally got liberals on the record against looting. It seems the looting in Iraq compared unfavorably with the “rebellion” in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. When “rebels” in Los Angeles began looting, liberals said it was a sign of frustration ? they were poor and hungry. As someone noted at the time, apparently they were thirsty as well, since they hit a lot of liquor stores. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were pretty careful about targeting the precise source of their oppression. Their looting concentrated on Saddam’s palace, official government buildings ? and the French cultural center.
However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of “collaboration” were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn’t seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.
Despondent over the success of the war in Iraq, liberals tried to cheer themselves up with the politics of personal destruction ? their second favorite hobby after defending Saddam Hussein. Responding to the question of whether the Supreme Court should hold sodomy to be a fundamental constitutional right, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum made the blindingly obvious point that a general right to engage in consensual sex would logically include adultery, polygamy and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.
For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something “everyone” does and “everyone” lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery. (While we’re in a sensitive mood, how about the name “the DIXIE Chicks”? Isn’t that name provocative to African-Americans?)
When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn’t feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.
