JANUARY 14--Scott Ritter, the controversial former chief U.N. weapons inspector and fierce Bush administration critic, is facing sexual exploitation of children charges after he was caught in an Internet sting. According to court records, Ritter, 48, engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with what he thought was a 15-year-old girl named Emily (but in fact was an undercover detective with the Barrett Township Police Department in Pennsylvania). The below probable cause affidavit notes that Ritter told "Emily" that we was "fantasizing about fucking you" and sent her a link to his web cam. "The web camera showed him masturbating again and then ejaculating," reported Detective Ryan Venneman." Ritter was charged late last year with unlawful contact with a minor, criminal solicitation, and indecent exposure, among other felony and misdemeanor counts. Ritter, who lives near Albany, N.Y., was caught in the sting last February. According to previous press reports, Ritter, pictured in the above mug shot, was twice previously snared in similar undercover online investigations. In one of those cases, Ritter was charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging to rendezvous at a Burger King with a 16-year-old girl he had met in an online chat room (the teen turned out to be an undercover policewoman). That 2001 case, details of which have been sealed, was dismissed after Ritter stayed out of trouble for a prescribed period of time. He is currently free on $25,000 unsecured bail and has waived his right to a preliminary heari
Very little will be made of this by the MSM because Ritter was and is a Bush critic and therefore a hero of the left. We all know what the coverage would be like if he was a Repub.
Actually he stated that there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs. You may see that as a Bush criticism but it all turned out to be correct with hindsight. The only other criticism of the government included all of the Clinton administration's policies, the first Bush administration's policies and Bush II's policies toward disarmament and Iraq so stating that he was somehow exclusively a "Bush critic" is wildly inaccurate. Actually he stated he voted for Bush in 2000.
Actually he said much more than there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs. He was also very outspoken against the invasion of Iraq, and went so far as to write on Al Jazeera's website that the the "Iraqi resistance" is a "genuine grassroots national liberation movement," and "History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government." Actually, he also accused the US of marching toward war with Iran, saying in 2005, "it is the United States, and not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme." Yes, he is a Bush critic, regardless of whether or not he claims to have voted for Bush in 2000. Anyway, the proof is in the coverage this story has received from the MSM.
And how is that criticism of Bush? Answer: it's not. You may disagree with him and he may be wrong, which is not the same. And how is that criticism of Bush? Look, I appreciate that you feel that anyone who disagrees with any foreign policy initiated by any Republican is a "critic of Bush" but you'll have to actually find some criticism of Bush to get anyone on board with you. As well, it doesn't help your case of Ritter being a "liberal" when he voted for Bush.
Let's not be too hasty: http://www.armchairsubversive.org/ http://dfa.meetup.com/boards/thread/2075382 One group appears to be in the lead.
Good grief. I appreciate that you feel a deep need to defend the Left, but a simple attempt on your part to be at least somewhat knowledgeable about that of which you speak before posting would be helpful. From Ritter's own book, Frontier Justice: "It is our responsibility as citizens to be ever vigilant in defense of our society. This means we should be honest in our evaluation of what is transpiring around us in the name of government. Bush as Hitler? You're damn right. For Americans, Bush is worse than Hitler. Hitler never came close to destroying the American way of life; Bush is accomplishing that objective in spades. Hitler dreamed of global conquest; Bush is doing his utmost to achieve it. The PNAC posse speaks of the dangers of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and other "rogue states," but the sad truth is that Sheriff Bush and his PNAC posse pose the greatest threat to the security of the United States, and international peace and security for that matter, than the world has known for sometime. In typical Orwellian doublespeak, Bush and his posse posture in defense against tyranny, while perpetrating tyranny themselves. They are masters of the Big Lie: America is threatened, but the danger comes from within, from the very ranks of those whom we elected to protect us." Yeah, I would say that stating "Bush is worse than Hitler" is being a critic of Bush. Now be a good boy and go back to the sandbox.