| Author | Message | ||
     notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2044 Registered: 5-2001  |
I suspect the last dozen words of Paul's post are a reasonable characterization not only of certain posters, but also of the administration they reflexively defend. | ||
| Strawberry Alarm Clock Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4503 Registered: 10-2001 |
Look, chances are the guy did it. However, despite this he still has something to say and if anyone's interested they should head on down to the library for a listen. Just keep in mind if you bring your 16 year old daughter the speaker could get distracted. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13186 Registered: 10-2001  |
Straw, you're better than that. If we're going to disagree with Mr. Ritter, let the disagreements stem from his views on Iraq, not from this nonsense. | ||
| Strawberry Alarm Clock Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4504 Registered: 10-2001 |
You have a point. However, let's not confuse Ritter with let's say a David Kay. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 241 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois, I think all sides gain respect from that approach. As chair of the meeting, I plan to divide the questions equally between supporters and critics. When calling on critics, I'll make a point to look for a guy wearing a | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 733 Registered: 3-2003 |
As more sordid tales of how United Nations staff has acted around the world are becoming known, what has impressed me is how well the media dances to the UN elites' denials and refusal to cooperate with anyone except kofi behind closed doors. Until this thread I hadn't tied Scott Ritter into the recent revelations. However, I do now. The accusations are beginning to make sense. A pattern, Paul, a pattern. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 413 Registered: 9-2004 |
If we're going to disagree with Mr. Ritter, let the disagreements stem from his views on Iraq, not from this nonsense. DITTO! | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4333 Registered: 10-1999  |
"However, let's not confuse Ritter with let's say a David Kay." That's correct, to a point. However, David Kay did confirm that the government's pre-war claims about Iraq's weapons were wrong. As he wrote as recently as last week: Link: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpkay084138294feb08,0,4104558.story?coll= ny-viewpoints-headlines | ||
| Strawberry Alarm Clock Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4507 Registered: 10-2001 |
right, David Kay speaks, I'm there. If Kay is Babe Ruth, Ritter is Bill Buckner.  | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 547 Registered: 8-2004 |
Straw a better comparison would be if Kay were Martin Scorcese , Ritter would be Roman Polanski. Nohero, Kay's testimony dealt with more than just no stockpiles. "Charles Krauthammer explains why David Kay's report vindicates the war against Saddam Hussein. As Krauthammer notes: "the question of whether Saddam was still in the WMD business is no longer open. 'We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities,' Kay testified, 'and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002' -- concealed, that is, from the hapless Hans Blix. Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service; bio-organisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum; and my favorite, 'new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin' -- all 'not declared to the U.N.'" Krauthammer believes, as does former U.N. inspection team head Rolf Ekeus, that Saddam had concluded that keeping mustard gas and other poisons in barrels was unstable and hard to conceal. So he decided to retain an infrastructure that could ramp up production when needed. But the fact that Saddam may have decided "to go from building up stocks to maintaining clandestine production facilities does not mean that he got out of the WMD business." Nor, if it matters, would that approach constitute compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441, which required a full accounting of Saddam's WMD program and full cooperation with inspectors." | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4334 Registered: 10-1999 |
Look, you can either believe David Kay's statements, or Krauthammer's spin. I'll go with the former. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 548 Registered: 8-2004 |
I will rely on David Kays actual statements and not the Media " we were all wrong " spin. Here is more on Kay with no spin. Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief By Con Coughlin (Filed: 25/01/2004) David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria. In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sShee t=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html Nohero along the lines of Straw's comparison for you we should say that Kay is Bruce while Ritter is R Kelly.  | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1576 Registered: 1-2003  |
Paul, While I don't think the fact that Ritter likes underage girls has any bearing on his Weapons views, you need to get your facts straight. The case against Ritter WAS NOT DISMISSED. It was sealed after a plea. There is a huge difference. Ritter plead guilty to a lesser charge, but what that was we will only know if Ritter tells us. Its not open to the public. Its like how Cheney's energy commission records are sealed. Are they a non-entity to you? Look, you should just admit he made a mistake over the internet with what he thought was a young girl, but that has no bearing on what he's going to talk about. Everyone makes mistakes, and 16 yr olds are hot. Who cares, right? It has no bearing on what he is going to say, so why deny it when its a matter of record. He was arrested twice for gods sake. This isn't false innuendo, the arrests are public record. But I guess you believe Michael Jackson is innocent too. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 624 Registered: 12-2003 |
He was arrested twice for gods sake. That's still one less time than the President. | ||
| ashear Supporter Username: Ashear Post Number: 1685 Registered: 5-2001 |
Michael, what is the basis for you assertion that that he pled to a lesser charge rather than having the case dismissed. The article excerpted above, by you, seems to indicate that the charges was dismissed, though there is some inconsistency. In one place it says " "Well generally speaking, if during the course of a court proceeding the defense asks for a sealing order based on a plea to a very lesser charge, a court can issue that under the CPL 160-50, which basically seals the entire record from the point of its start to the point of its finish," Deputy Police Chief Steve Heider explained. " But later it says " Both reports say that Ritter later struck a deal with Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser that allowed the case to be dismissed and the records sealed." It seems almost certain that the case was dismmissed since the first statement, by the police officer, is factually incorrect. CPL 160.50 provides for sealing only where the case is resolved favorably to the defendant, which would, in essence, mean either dismissal or aquital after trial. It would not apply where there has been a plea to a lesser charge. Indeed, I know of no provision of New York law that would allow the records of a gulity plea to a criminal charge to be sealed. While I have not followed this debate, based on the facts here it seems almost certain that the case was dismissed. From the article it is not even clear that the second arrest was Scott Ritter, I found the article confusing on that point. Nor is it chear how that arrest was resolved. Also, it appears that the arrests are not public record. } | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 415 Registered: 9-2004 |
Janay Why are you so OBSESSED in determining your character assasination on the Ritter? Geesh! | ||
| Sgt. Pepper Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 685 Registered: 12-2003  |
When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. It's pretty simple. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 863 Registered: 7-2004 |
A page right out of the Bush-sponsored Swift Boat Liars... | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 242 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael, You would do well to clear up your record a bit and retract what you state as "fact" in your post #1576. Unless you want to redefine the word "fact" to include politically-motivated scurrilous speculation, hostile to American values and bordering on the pathological. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 549 Registered: 8-2004 |
Robert, you are exactly right. Dozens of Swift Boat Vets were verbally attacked during the campaign. |
