Report: Former U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter Arrested in Internet Sex Sting (AP)

AP-Fox News ^ | 1/21/03 | AP

[Grampa Dave]

Well a lot of us feel that it is very important to show the world why this guy who is dangerous to us rolled over and became Soddomite's lap dog.

This is a story that needs to blasted out everyday to defuse the lies that this dangerous man has spewed for about 2 years.

It will be!

He will probably not come back from Bagdad if he goes.

[The Electrician]

Attack Scott Ritter for his appeasement -- that's fair. Take a page out of Bill Clinton and Larry Flynt's playbook to attack him -- sorry.

Sorry, but the analogy to Larry Flynt's actions just doesn't fly - in fact, what's going on here is exactly the opposite. What is different here is that this gives a hint of a possible explanation for the very public about face that Ritter has done with respect to Iraq, and therefore it just demands that investigative journalists follow the leads to see whether Saddam's hand might be behind it, or whether some Democrat operative might have had some unseen connection (a.k.a. blackmail for political purposes). Ritter has been a useful tool for the Democrats and for the 'hate America firsters'. In that respect, this is the exact opposite of what Flynt did - Flynt was indeed pursuing blackmail for political purposes, whereas the overwhelming interest in this case on FR goes towards ferreting out the story behind the story - namely has Ritter been blackmailed, and if so, by whom.

[My2Cents]

I'm not defending his behavior, which is disgusting. But I have to make the distinction: Tell me why his weakness for 14 year old girls affects his credibility over what he's been saying about Iraq? I think history will prove Scott Ritter wrong! wrong! wrong! on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without this story.

[My2Cents]

this gives a hint of a possible explanation for the very public about face that Ritter has done with respect to Iraq

If a link can be made between this situation and his about-face, then make the link. Is there a link? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not defending Scott Ritter, who I think is a seditious POS. I'm arguing against the leap at trying to draw a conclusion about his motives...That's something the liberals do. Stick with the facts.

[LiteKeeper]

they were reporting it two days ago.

[Smedley]

Tell me why his weakness for 14 year old girls affects his credibility over what he's been saying about Iraq?

Blackmail. Think that it can't be argued that Ritter is being blackmailed by a foreign power? Is it likely -- I have no idea, but its one of those explainations that well explains Ritters 180 turnabout on Iraq.

[SerpentDove]

I guess I was mislead by the dateline which is quite clearly 1/21.

[SerpentDove]

>>Tell me why his weakness for 14 year old girls affects his credibility over what he's been saying about Iraq? <<

You are kidding, right? You would believe this man who has INEXPLICABLY done a 180 on Irag's WOMDs, when he has been arrested for these crimes and has shown himself to be blackmailable?

I am not saying I could prove in a court of law what he did,, as i am not a prosecutor.

All I'm saying is that anyone who would take Scott Ritter's words over the POTUS, regarding these life-and-death issues, is a damned fool.

IMHO, of course.

[The Electrician]

I agree with your "maybe, maybe not", but we probably part company on whether or not speculation is warranted in the absence of facts...

[InfraRed]

Tell me why his weakness for 14 year old girls affects his credibility...

Maybe his credibility takes a hit because of his problem with truth/reality/memory failure...

When contacted by the Gazette last Friday, Ritter denied any knowledge of the incidents.

"Sorry, you must have the wrong person," Ritter told the newspaper.

[My2Cents]

Speculate away...I'm just saying that in the absense of any confirmation that his desire to hide this information is linked to his shift in policy on Iraq, we're simply trying to get into his head and assume motive. Reading people's minds and ascribing motive to what people do is what the left does. "He believes such-and-such because he's a racist!...", without anything to substantiate the claim. I just don't think we need to participate in that kind of approach of attacking a person's position on policy by trying to divine the motives of one's heart (black as it may be).

[My2Cents]

Blackmail. Think that it can't be argued that Ritter is being blackmailed by a foreign power? Is it likely

Do tell!....You can't. Nobody can. It's a delicious possibility, and not out of the realm of probability. But is it a fact? No one knows. And for that reason, such speculation will become futile.

[AndyTheBear]

Sorry, but I gotta join the chorus of disagreement. I think we need to distinquish between sex scandals that are fair game, and those that should be left private. We should apply the same to all the public figures without regard to whether they are liberal or conservative. In Ritter's case we are talking about criminal activity. If this is not a case of mistaken idenity, then I think it is relevant to Mr Ritter's risdule authority from his former postition of public trust. The public at large is the Board of Directors of such, and we have the responsibility to not tolerate those that abuse the noterity we grant them.

[justa-hairyape]

Stick with the facts

The problem with that is that these 'facts' are two years old. We should have known about this 2 years ago. Now either the blackmailers or the blackmailer were able to keep these 'facts' unknown to the public. So in this case, investigatory inquiry and speculation is not only recommended, it is required. What else is hidden in Scotties closet. What other work has he been doing for Saddam besides lieing about Saddams desire to acquire nuclear weapons ?

[Miss Marple]

The important thing about this story, and why we should keep it in the public eye, is not what Ritter did (though despicable). The important thing is that he was blackmailable, and also someone pulled strings to have this story hushed up.

To my mind, the emphasis should be on why this case was hidden from the public.

[guitfiddlist]

I don't know what could be more obvious red warning lights pointing to a compromised person than somebody prone to pedophilia (as his arrest indicates), being stationed in Iraq for 7 years where he could be set up - suddenly doing a complete 180 in his public position on Iraqi WMD's - and then receiving $400,000 from Iraqi sources. If this is not out of the classic "turning of an agent" manual, I don't know what is. Basic stick and carrot - the more usual order for compromising somebody initially loyal.

To ignore his pedophila is not being an enlightened person, tolerant of widely diverse sexual mores - it is being a complete doofus as to the likely turning of this scumbag - as well as somebody who tolerates the most heinous crime in society's current hit parade of "Most Heinous" crimes you can do. And why? Not because Ritter is our friend...but because he's our enemy. Add another 2 points for being a dipsh*t.

[L.N. Smithee]

Albany County Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser agreed to have the case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning the charge would be dropped if Ritter stayed out of trouble for six months, and the case was subsequently sealed, the newspaper said.

Two months earlier, Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, tried to meet a 14-year-old girl he chatted with online and was instead met by police officers, the Times Union of Albany reported Tuesday. Ritter was released without being charged.

District Attorney Paul Clyne fired Preiser last week because he said she failed to inform him about a "sensitive" case, but would not say what the case was.

You won't belieeeeeve where the name "Cindy Preiser" shows up in a cached Google search.

Now....this isn't necessarily the same Cynthia Preiser...but it might be interesting to find out if she went to Towson State University.

[Brandybux]

Blackmail. Think that it can't be argued that Ritter is being blackmailed by a foreign power? Is it likely?

But is it a fact? No one knows. And for that reason, such speculation will become futile.

You are exactly wrong. Somebody knows. Quite a few people know.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the reports are true, and that the case was sealed. Under this supposition, the following people know:

1. The judge. Also, several employees of his court, such as court reporter(s), clerks, file secretaries, and similar folk.

2. The prosecutor (the one fired), the Prosecutor (who did the firing, since he found out about it), their sundry support personnel (legal aides, secretaries, file clerks, and assorted government office factotums).

3. The Police investigators who made the sting, including all the various support personnel involved in policework and sting operations, including supervisors and their support personnel.

4. Some of the family of all of the above. C'mon folks, this is just tooooo rich. You think every single one of the already considerable population who knows the facts is going to keep every detail from their husbands, wives, boy and girlfriends, and those whom it would be fun or profitable to impress with inside poop?

All that's needed is for enough time to pass to make tracking the leak difficult. Indeed, if we want to specultate on why this is coming out now, the passage of time is enough, and the occasion for delivering a humongous comeuppance, by someone who was sick to his/her guts with what happened ... well, you get the idea.

Yes, there are facts. And people aplenty know them. And someone is leaking them like a sieve.

[My2Cents]

The important thing about this story, and why we should keep it in the public eye, is not what Ritter did (though despicable). The important thing is that he was blackmailable, and also someone pulled strings to have this story hushed up.

Thank you, Miss Marple. This is the first compelling reason, or linkage between this story and the policy debate over Iraq, that anyone has yet offered on the thread. To everyone else, the story is red meat, and the ability to link it to the policy debate was lost in the desire to pound Ritter into dust. The linkage cannot be proven, but as you say, blackmail is plausible. The question should be asked; but no one should go beyond the question and jump to a conclusion.