Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (136053)	6/9/2004 8:14:57 AM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 281500

>> Anyway, even if Scott Ritter is a sex freak, that's separate from what Saddam did and whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not. "Hey, Scott Ritter's a queer child molester! Therefore, Saddam has got WMDs and Ritter is wrong that he hasn't." I think that doesn't make sense. In fact, it's stupid! << It may be stupid to you, but there are 40 million morons to whom it makes perfect sense.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (136053)	6/9/2004 9:33:14 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, dismissal means not convicted, which means innocent of the charges. And why was it dismissed? It wasn't his first offense, after all.. In April 2001, William Ritter attempted to meet someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl he met online but who in reality was an undercover police officer posing as an underage minor. He was met at the meeting place by police officers but released without being charged. jdo.org They had him dead to rights, in both cases, soliciting sex with what he perceived was a teen-ager. He went to meet this girl, and that's where he discovered that he'd actually been flirting with a detective. It's no different than when an detective, under cover as a prostitute, is able to charge someone for soliciting sex with a prostitute if they make an offer of money for sex. Maybe the judge got some of that oil for food money too?? And what's wrong with accepting money from Saddam? Something to do with presenting his opinion as objective analysis when, in fact, he was a paid agent of Saddam's regime. I guess if such a belief was sound, then I we'll have to just close the entire oil for food corruption investigation and declare it irrelevant. Or maybe we could make bribing expert witnesses and juries a legitimate activity. And we don't have to worry about all of those UN officials who might have "altered" their opinion of Saddam in exchange for being permitted to sell, on Iraq's behalf, millions of barrels of oil, including the head of the oil for food program itself. The biggest gripe I have with Ritter is that in 1998, he was a voiciferous advocate of getting tough with Saddam, encouraging the US to threaten, or even use, military force to achieve compliance with inspections. And he did it in front of the US Senate. But give him $400,000 out of Saddam's oil piggy bank, and suddenly the boy starts singing a completely different tune. That's what's wrong with it. He doesn't want to talk about his hawkish rhetoric from 1998 when he was actually engaged as an inspector. But have him lose his security clearance, and some Iraqi with connections to Saddam greases his palm, and suddenly he's willing to state Iraq has no weapons, even though the inspections were no longer underway. Hawk