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: geode00 who wrote (191460)	7/12/2006 2:26:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"...Mr Ritter said that he had rebuffed each attempt and filed reports on the approaches to the FBI. He had also filed reports to the US Treasury when he was raising the money for Shifting Sands. He took the money!! EVEN WHEN Al-Khalafi offered him jewels and things that were obviously a bribe, he wouldn't turn down the money. He KNEW that Al Khalafi was associated with high level Iraqi Intelligence officers. The documents say that the gifts should be offered via an intermediary, who was named as Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman and close associate of Mr Ritter. The documents, which are signed by the then director-general of Iraqi intelligence, purport to reveal close links between Mr al-Khafaji and Iraqi intelligence, and suggest that the regime was making available substantial funds to offer him. Mr Ritter and Mr al-Khafaji have both made clear that they received no such gifts or funds. And Al-Khafaji ALSO claimed to have told Ritter that the money was not provided by the Iraqi government, BUT HE LIED... (he admitted he lied). Now if Ritter had made a movie that substantiated the findings that he testified to the Senate and it was paid for by Al-Khalafi, that might lend some credibility to his opinon. But the fact that he UTTERLY REVERSED this position in the movie either means that he did it for the money (bribe), or he perjured himself to the Senate. As for Worldnet Daily.. I merely provided what I thought was the most extensive and detailed article.. But I found the same thing at the New York Daily news, and CNN. nydailynews.com cnn.com It's pretty widely admitted (although under-reported) that Ritter received special treatment, including the Asst Attorney General bypassing her boss and cutting a personal deal with Ritter in order to hush up the arrest, as well as sealing all records).. WHY WERE THE RECORDS SEALED??!! And you talk about abuse of power?? And guess what.. Scott Ritter's wife was a former KGB "sex kitten, trained to sexually compromise foreign spies. ropma.net So listen.. defend Ritter to your heart's desire.. But the fact remains that compromised HIS OWN CREDIBILITY in exchange for money and a seat at the Democratic paid speaker tour.. Go ahead.. defend a sexual predator who tries to entice young girls to watch him "pleasure himself".. After Ritter and Dulfer, 3 1/2 years, $300+ billion you still believe that Saddam was within 45 minutes of launching nuclear missiles? You believe that Santorum was right about those toxic kitchen sink munitions? No.. what I believe is that Saddam violated the 1991 cease-fire by kicking out the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998 (consequently putting Ritter out of a job).. And for 5 years, NO ONE, not Bush, not Ritter, not France, could tell anyone the status of Saddam's remaining unaccounted for WMD stockpiles (Iraqi records recorded a descrepancy of 6,000 warheads which Iraq lied about having used against Iran in the '80s, and the discovery of these documents was the reason UNSCOM was kicked out of Iraq). What I believe is that Saddam SUCCEEDED in corrupting the UNSC (as the oil for food scandal has revealed) so that he would never have to totally reveal everything about his programs. The very fact that UNSC 1441 was UNANIMOUSLY PASSED and declared Saddam in Material Breach of the cease fire accord is sufficient for me. All the UNSC members agreed that Saddam had violated the cease-fire agreement.. The only disagreement was what to do about it and whether knowing the truth, pro or con, was worth going to war over. Hawk