We know it was AFTER the Biden Committee testimony, and I am pretty sure it was WHILE Fox had him as a consultant.
I heard someone from Fox, I think Brit Hume, say that he was hired but then it became apparent that his views were way out there, so they let him go.
So, we can assume that the change occurred about that time, since his views were obviously not too loony for Fox to hire him initially.
Now, what I would like to know is if his loony behavior began right after these charges were dropped, and if those charges being dropped and the file sealed were a pay-off for loony behavior, with the threat that all would be revealed if he didn't cooperate.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know if there is ANOTHER charge elsewhere, hanging over his head. It would also be interesting to know WHO caused the case to be dropped and why this was concealed from the DA. If the assistant DA did it at directions of someone other than the DA, that would indicate reasons for her dismissal. WHO did this? (A certain junior New Yorok senator comes to mind, but heck, that may just be my tin foil tendencies.)
No tin foil hat needed here.
Rarely is a criminal caught for his/her first criminal act.
You can bet the farm Ritter has a background of this behavior in his past.
Now.....who will be the news organization to obtain and release this information?
Saddam Hussein's American Apologist
From the November 19, 2001 issue: The strange career of former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/19/2001, Volume 007, Issue 10 [snip]
The part about admiring and greeting is literal. Ritter was welcomed back to Baghdad in July 2000, with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. The reason for his trip? To produce a documentary film, "In Shifting Sands," that would chronicle the weapons-inspection process and, he says, "de-demonize" Iraq. The 90-minute film, which he says he is close to selling to a broadcast outlet, was produced with the approval of the Iraqi government and features interviews with numerous high-level Iraqi officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
U.S. intelligence officials and arms control advocates say Ritter has been played--perhaps unwittingly--by Saddam Hussein. "If you're Scott Ritter," says one arms expert, "the former 'cowboy' weapons inspector, kicked out by Saddam Hussein, you're not going to get back into Iraq unless Saddam Hussein invites you and wants you there."
[SNIP]
All inspections stopped in December 1998. That same month, in an article written for the New Republic, Ritter again warned of the continuing Iraqi threat, this time in much greater detail. "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed," he maintained. "Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
[SNIP]
SO IT WAS, and is. But Ritter now utterly contradicts his testimony of 1998, according to which Saddam Hussein could have reconstituted a fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction by the middle of 1999. By that time, in a June 1999 interview with leaders of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a peace organization based in Nyack, New York, he had changed his tune. "When you ask the question [does] Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? The answer is 'no.' It is a resounding NO! Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No. It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."
It may be the Reynolds talking. Someone reminded me a few days ago that when Ritter testified before the Senate committee, he spend some time criticizing the Clinton adminstration Middle East policies & Maddie Albright, prompting Joe Biden to tell Ritter that he was talking above his pay grade. He detested that administration and he detests this one.
But not only do I want to know a whole lot more about this story--if there were other charges in other jurisdictions, for example (and maybe that he's being blackmailed)--but if others in the internet sex ring were treated similarly (if some or all they received secret prosecutions, for example, or was it just Scott that received special treatment). I want to know why this was covered up. I want to know who his lawyer was and who paid for that lawyer (Ritter seems to have unlimited funds for global travel).
And that's just the start of my questions.
This if from an interview he did which is kind of awkward to post. If he really saw this and believes this, how could he turn his back on it? Now I have to wonder if he was just there picking up chicks. :
Q : You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?
A: The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.
I'd need to see the earliest public statements counter to the administrations goals.
Also consider : if he honestly gave his opinion to officials in private, this would also be a reason.
How did he perform at the Biden Committee? I don't like the guy (nor particularly care about him), so I didn't watch.
Great questions, MM. I'd like to know the answers as well - they could explain a lot.
Another thing I don't understand is why the networks keep putting him on, when it's obvious his views are 180 degrees from what they were when he returned from Iraq. Maybe they think we have short memories?
I was thinking along the same lines. I'm certain we haven't heard all there is to know on this issue yet.
Methinks you're wasting too much energy trying to debate folks who'll find boogie men under their bed when their mattress has already been tossed on the floor because of previous boogie man theories.
As a fan, and one who is far too naive about how the world works, I'd prefer it if you delved into more of the "what-if" kinda stuff. I always learn something when you're fired up and on a roll.
I already know how to fight. I was married once. She got mad, kicked me out, and stole my millions. I know that drill.
BTW, I'm patterning a character in a screenplay after you and three other FReeper hell-cats. I need some more fodder. I'm running out of juice.
Yup, I heard Brit say that, too.
So now you can be VERY sure. <|:)~