I watched him last night on "The Point" last night with Gretta Van Sustran(spelling?).

She (the host) brought up a statement Ritter had said back in 1998 about his frustration with Iraq about them continuing to hide weapons and making their searches futile. This statement was in response to Iraq booting the inspectors in 1998.

He responds with "well allot has changed since 1998".

What's funny is there have been no inspections since then, until November last year.

The the host tries to add something else to the conversation and Ritter blows up and says" WAIT A MINUTE, will you give me a chance to respond to the 'abrasive' statements you made about me"

At this point i was thinking "WHAT!!??"

Statements she made about him? All the host did was quote exactly what Ritter had said in 1998. Ho win the hell can he say that his own words describing the situation at that point are abrasive.


Can somebody shed some light on this loon.


Sleeper

Hey Sleeper, welcome.

I saw that interview on Greta's show last night too (mostly because neither Mike nor I were willing to find the remote to change the channel )

When this whole "let's search Iraq again" stuff starting coming up, Ritter made the round of talking head shows. At that time, he was making some very valid and interesting points regarding weapons inspections. We even covered it a little on this forum here: Is Scott Ritter a traitor?!?!.

I don't know if Ritter had woken up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday or what, but he was rude and arrogant in that interview. He yelled at Greta and talked over the retired General (forget his name) that was also being interviewed. Greta even had to threaten to cut his mike he was being so obnoxious.

Let's just say Mr. Ritter would have gotten a strike on this forum if he was as rude here as he was on that show

I don't care what one has to say, but if they yell at me, there is a real good chance I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears

I'm not surprised. I missed this interview but have seen him on others where his words were twisted, where he was accused of being a traitor, where the host was accusatory, etc.

I would think it would make one overly defensive after awhile. Personally, I'm on his side of the argument so I think he's very brave for having the guts to stand up like he is. Can you imagine the immense pressure to do that in this day and age?

And after fighting in one or two wars for this country I can understand getting angry at someone who has never even been in war to question your patriotism.

What other proof do they have that he has been brainwashed, and who is supposed to have done this to him? Saddam?

His words were not twisted, nor was he mis-quoted.

All the host did was read from a direct quote in context that he made regarding a letter he wrote after being kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Then the host proceeded to ask what he menat from that statement.

On a side note.....

I too was against action in Iraq.

But unlike most others I cannot over look the things Saddam has done in the past.

Invaded or attacked his neighbors, used chemical weapons on his own people(how can any human excuse this), launced weapons on Isreal and Saudi Arabia.

We cannot allow a man like this to stay in power. It will only get worse.

I want to ask those who defend a man like Saddam to give me reasons why you think he is worth defending.


Just remember. Let common sense rule the day.

Sleeper

There is a difference between defending Saddam and not wanting to go to war over something that is un-necessary.

Saddam has been quiet for the last ten years. I simply want to be convinced that war is needed. So far I haven't been convinced...more over I feel that we are taking it much too lightly.

I can't believe Ritter

Of course, when he was in Iraq at the time he said the opposite of what he said in 1998, i heard that he was getting paid by a wealthy Iraqi businessman

I heard Bush was getting paid off by a lot of wealthy business men.

Ritter should be able to say what he wants about the war. He was mean to Greta. Maybe he was just ticked off by the repeated questions about why he doesn't agree with everyone else. What if he is right (not likely)?

You heard that Bush was getting paid off, huh? I'm sure your hunches and suspiscions are enough to convict President Bush. In repsonse to Danya, who claims Iraq has been "quiet for 10 years". As far as attacking another country, he couldn't Desert Storm weakened him to the point he had no offensive capabilities. But he has been financing terror, funneling money to all the Palestinian terror groups and Al-Queda. Scott Ritter, I won't allege he is a traitor. But for him to be in Baghdad, speaking in good terms of Sadam Hussein, looks like major conflict of interest to me. Where are the other U.N. inspectors who worked with him. Inspectors are like sports referees, they are to be behind the scenes and above the fray. Ritter's posturing is a way for him to get book sales, especially to the left.

Scott Ritter was the first American to speak before the Iraqi Parliment, a country we are still technically at a state of war with. He gave a speech on September 7th, 2002.


This flies in the face of Hussein giving $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
I honestly think a case of Iraq having some role in 9/11 will be made in the near future, but that is only my speculation.

I'm not going to question his patriotism, he's a former marine, and served his country honorably.
He may be a little misguided though. It's a little odd that his 180 degree change of heart towards Iraq's WMD program came about the time he made a documentary about the above program at the invitation of Hussein himself, and funded by an Iraq born American citizen.

Ritter resigned from the United Nations almost two years ago in protest over the U.S. failure to support even tougher U.N. inspections. Iraqi leaders, having frequently accused Ritter of spying on Iraq for the CIA, seemed to view their erstwhile enemy as an asset in their propaganda war against the United States.

From all I've read he seems to have been upset with the decision makers at the time for not allowing him to do his job. Like I said earlier, that's a far cry from going to war and I believe he is outraged over the fact that this administration is lying to people or fabricating stories in order to attack Iraq.

I also do not believe the stories have any real merit about funding terrorists. If there were any truth to it Bush would have already had the proof he needed for war and would have no reason to hide it.

If there is any proof that Saddam was behind 9/11 I would have no problem with taking him out. I still would have reservations about dropping bombs on innocent Iraqi's though.

Scott Ritter within the last week has been indicted for child porn and taking indecent liberties with minors. He is not to be believed. I know that many liberals are willing to believe any opinion opposite of President Bush, but if a child molestor is your source, his words are of no value. Child molestors are also pathological liars

How convenient for the government, huh? I'm sure Ritter expected to be accussed of something like this when he came forward.

If there was nothing in his closet the government has no problem putting something there to discredit anyone who has the balls to speak out against them.

So let me get this straight. The government forced Ritter to go on line and actively pursue underage girls in chat rooms and attempt to get them to meet him at a local Burger King?

Sleeper

Has he been convicted or just accused? Are you surprised he is being accused of something? I'm not.

Sources, please. Ideally in an appropriate thread.

These incidents did happen over a year ago. As to the complete details of the case, has not surfaced yet or will be soon. He was on CNN last night with Aaron Brown, who was giving him a pretty hard time about them as when they had been brought up a while back he flat out lied about him being arrested. Although last night he admitted it. But he did not give any details.

Sleeper