Scott Ritter: Kerry's a Phony

EIB ^ | 2-9-04 | Rush Limbaugh

[jmstein7]

Many people have been asking, "Where's Scott Ritter?" Well, ask no more. The former Iraq weapons inspector, who was arrested after being nabbed twice for soliciting what he thought were 14- and 16-year-old girls but turned out to be undercover cops in an online chat room, has written a column for New York Newsday on the weapons of mass destruction question. It's headlined: "Kerry, Too, Needs to Clear the Air."

Ritter recounts Kerry's "pious rectitude" in attacking President Bush on the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's WMDs, but then drops this blockbuster: "The problem for Sen. Kerry, of course, is that he, too, is culpable in the massive breach of public trust that has come to light regarding Iraq, WMD and the rush to war." I'm by no means condoning Ritter's editorializing about this war, but I am pointing out that he thinks Kerry guilty of this "massive breach of public trust."

Kerry had a chance to stand up and say, "It's all BS." Instead, he voted for the liberation and is only now changing his tune. This is reminiscent of then-Senator Al Gore selling his vote for the first Gulf War to then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole because Dole promised him more TV time to grandstand. Ritter states: "John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace."

Ritter writes that when he lobbied Congress for a review of the nation's Iraq policy in April 2000, he spoke to Kerry who asked him to put claims of "hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD" in writing. Ritter had the Arms Control Association send "several copies" to Kerry, then sent one of his own. The senator never responded. This guy's point is that Kerry knew everything Bush knew. The press put Ritter on as a guest 24/7 when he made these same charges about the president. Let's see if they do the same now that the very same guy is slamming John F. Kerry.

[JOE6PAK]

[SiliconValleyGuy]

I agree with Ritter. But I wouldn't form any opinions based on his. It's just one piece of slime calling another piece of slime a piece of slime.

[futureceo31]

Thank you for your service. You might want to repost your comments on the new thread that has started regarding his medals.

[Capt. Tom]

Why Newsday? Why today? Why Ritter? Somebody is throwing us a bone.

You will see a lot of attacks on Kerry now by the leftist press. It doesn't count because of the limited attention span of the public.

When it gets critical a couple of months before the election the press will fall silent on Kerry's shortcomings. When pressed about the non- coverage of Kerry's downside, the press will respond "we talked about that before that's old news now."

The big difference today is that talk radio , Fox news, the Internet and some right leaning newspapers will talk about it in the late summer and early fall when it counts. - Tom

[Just mythoughts]

Over all I tend to agree. Ritter is a special case because of his history. Newsday using Ritter to go after Kerry, like Ritter has credibility, is odd.

So to whom would a piece like this serve? Somebody at Newsday owe someone else a favor? Maybe another dim?

Will anyone follow-up in the media asking Kerry to respond to Ritter? Likely not, so maybe someone is sending a signal to JFKerry to get his attention.

[VadeRetro]

Ritter doesn't think Kerry went far enough soon enough selling out his country. Also, Kerry likes his women older and richer than Ritter does.

[CFC__VRWC]

Why Newsday? Why today? Why Ritter? Somebody is throwing us a bone.

If I'm not mistaken, Scotty's thrown in with Dennis Kook-cinich

Maybe Scotty thinks Grandfather Twilight's favorite candidate looks like Peter Pan or something.

Something tells me the Loony Left isn't about to go quietly into the night and fall in meekly behind Jean Luc Cheri, and Ritter may be firing some of the opening salvos.

[Just mythoughts]

Interesting. I didn't know this, thanks.

[dsc]

It is also worth noting that a purple heart is not an award for valor.

For a long time, the marines gave "wound stripes" instead, which were worn on the opposite sleeve from hash marks for service.

Of course, I don't denigrate the purple heart. Anybody with a legitimate purple heart showed up and went in harm's way, and that's all that's required. That is honorable, and to be respected.

[armymarinemom]

[Salvation]

Guess I missed this!