Ritter HAD started talking against the administration and was more pro-Iraq, but no one other than some college kids heard him.
I stand by my theory that he was useful to someone as an anti-administration voice, and they covered the arrest up to preserve his usefulness. Once 9/11 happened, he started showing up on all the talk shows, acting quite desperate. Silly me, I assumed at first that perhaps the Iraqis had a girlfriend they were holding hostage. Au contraire.
The more I think about this, the more I am positive we need to find out about who in Albany was involved in this and why.
This occurred to me, too. It really makes sense.
Delmar resident Scott Ritter makes no apology for opposing war on IraqBy ALAN WECHSLER, Staff writer First published: Monday, September 23, 2002
In the past day, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector did three radio interviews, the CNN show ``TalkBack Live,'' a news conference and a speech at Georgia State University. A day earlier, he talked to ``Crossfire,'' the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and spent an hour on C-Span.
Delmar native and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter addresses a news conference at Georgia State University Sept. 17.
Now, the Delmar resident is talking long-distance from the Ritz-Carlton in Atlanta to the Times Union. The former Marine, who once stared down the barrel of an Iraqi machine gun as he tried to enter an off-limits military complex, is explaining why he has become a dove.
While America's leaders continue to push for war with Iraq, Ritter has become one of the loudest voices opposing it.
``Others may wage war right now,'' he says. ``I'm waging peace.''
Ritter, 41, a native of Gainesville, Fla., moved to the Capital Region two years ago with his wife, Marina, and twin daughters. He was looking for a quiet place within a three-hour drive of New York City. Here, he's a member of the fire department and an avid golfer.
But nationally, he's famous -- or infamous, depending on your point of view -- for becoming the first American to speak to the Iraq National Assembly. He told the Middle East nation it needed to allow arms inspectors back in the country.
Politicians and arms experts say they can't understand why Ritter, who spent seven years looking for signs of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, is opposed to war. But while some have called Ritter a traitor, he is unapologetic.
``I went in there because it was a dramatic intervention designed to thrust a dissenting point of view,'' he says.
Locally, Ritter keeps a low profile. He's been a member of the Delmar Fire Department for a year -- he was one of 17 to join soon after Sept. 11 -- and members say he almost never talks about politics.
``He's proven himself. He's really gung-ho,'' says William Wright, the chairman of the Delmar Board of Fire Commissioners. ...
The house Ritter lives in with his family is appears generic, except that the entire downstairs is painted bright yellow. That's because his wife, whom he met in the former Soviet Union while in the Marines, says it reminds her of home in the Republic of Georgia. With Ritter traveling, her father, who doesn't speak English, is keeping her company. She declined to talk about her husband's work.
... A decade ago, Ritter hardly seemed destined to be the leading voice opposing a war. After growing up in a military family, he joined the Marines as a young man and eventually became a weapons inspector with the Corps in the former Soviet Union. ...
U.S. Rep. John McHugh, R-Watertown, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, says he, too, couldn't understand Ritter's stance.
``It's at odds with virtually every other assessment any outside expert has rendered,'' he said.
Other critics point out that Ritter received $400,000 from an Iraqi businessman living in Detroit, which Ritter used to make a full-length documentary, ``In Shifting Sands,'' which depicts damage caused by U.S. sanctions.
Ritter says the money was a loan and that the lender, Shakair Al-Khafaji, had no editorial control.
Well, I question if the word "cover up" applies, in any serious sense. Presumably, Ritter was a first-time offender. It seems that the alleged offense (proposing a consensual exhibitionist encounter to a soi disante 16-year old Lolita on the Internet) falls well short of pedophilia or statutory rape. The evidence that anything prosecutable actually occured may well have been borderline. That Ritter's lawyer could have got the whole thing quashed doesn't strike me as that extraordinary, on the face of it. That's what lawyers are for.
I agree. How can we find out the name of his attorney?