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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160547)	4/15/2005 2:55:24 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ritter? The guy who made a point of saying that there were no WMDs as we prepared to invade? The guy who was bang on correct? I can see why you would pull out all the stops to smear him -- after all, no effort should be spared to assassinate the character of anybody who questions the intelligence and judgement of this Administration. I don't recall basing my thoughts on what Ritter had to say -- although I do acknowledge that what he was saying was close to the truth, as distinct from the bald-faced lying coming out of the White House. But no matter -- you have no interest in foreign policy, much less in the truth. You are too busy doing whatever you can to smear a person who had it right.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160547)	4/15/2005 3:13:07 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"It's actually rather pathetic to think that Ritter could be bought for so little. They must have had something else on him. A man with a taste for underage girls is easy to blackmail." If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it generally is a duck. Again the Michael Jackson analogy is apt. Imagine the gloved one as a weapons inspector and Saddam gets wind of his licking boys heads in bed. I will tell all unless you do as i say and by the way how much money do you need to live in a style you like. It may not be true but the scott ritter thing reaks and i dont understand why the left pins its hopes on this guy. mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (160547)	4/15/2005 5:08:49 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

STILL using this guy as a credible witness. Credibility comes with being correct. In this case Ritter was correct. I don't care if he is a pedophile, though I highly doubt that...because no one credible has come forward with any facts on that...or on the $43,000. I have high doubts about both stories. But credibility is measured after the fact in this case...and Ritter had it right...therefore he's credible. Are you trying to say that since Ritter allegedly took $43,000 to make a movie...that there's got to be WMD's because he's not credible??? Ah...hello...the US weapons inspection team has been there for two years...following up on the work by UNSCOM...and both teams concluded that Saddam had no WMD. LOL...You're living in the past, still trying to black brush people...and still with no credible evidence yourself. What is it that motivates such hate? It's your credibility that is at stake here... Orca