Skip to comments.
'Baghdad' Jim McDermott Took Cash from Saddam Ally
NewsMax.com ^
| 5/01/03
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 05/01/2003 9:34:43 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
1
posted on
05/01/2003 9:34:43 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Staggering news? Clinton took how much from the Chinese? $5,000 does not rise to the Galloway level of political peril. Now if he took cash prior to changing his views, then maybe. Scott Ritter is a more interesting candidate so far.
To: Starrgaizr
I suspect this is just the $5,000 we know about.
3
posted on
05/01/2003 9:39:25 AM PDT
by
MizSterious
(Support whirled peas!)
To: kattracks
Gee, I'm just shocked beyond belief that McDermott would take money from Scott Ritter's benefactor. < /sarcasm>
4
posted on
05/01/2003 9:39:35 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: kattracks
Anyone want to bet if this story ever runs in the Seattle P-I?
To: Catspaw
McDermott got a pass from Trent Lott on the wiretapping issue. He is a crook from way back - makes the former Mayor Daley look like a choir boy.
To: kattracks
BTTT
7
posted on
05/01/2003 9:47:38 AM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: kattracks
Get a rope!
8
posted on
05/01/2003 9:47:42 AM PDT
by
SwinneySwitch
(Liberate Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, NK, Cuba,...Hollywood - Support the Troops!)
To: kattracks
On October 25, McDermott received a check for $5,000 from Shakir al-Khafaji. The money, first reported by Amy Keller in Roll Call, had been deposited in an account for the McDermott Legal Expense Trust, a fund the congressman set up to pay legal bills in a lawsuit brought against him by Rep. John Boehner. (In 1996, McDermott had released to the media the transcript of a phone conversation between Boehner and Newt Gingrich, taped by a Florida couple.)
No one has accused McDermott of being a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein simply for financial reasons. Indeed, McDermott has been saying stupid things for years with no evidence anyone has paid him to do so. A spokesman for McDermott says he "doesn't know off the top of [his] head" whether McDermott has plans to return the money.
9
posted on
05/01/2003 9:49:44 AM PDT
by
kcvl
To: Blue Screen of Death
Anyone want to bet if this story ever runs in the Seattle P-I?Not a chance.
And don't bother holding your breath waiting to see if it shows up in the P-I, either.
10
posted on
05/01/2003 9:50:24 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: kattracks
It was the "$ 400,000 given to Scott Ritter two years ago" that caught my attention. I certainly don't take Newsmax reporting as gospel, but I don't recall hearing that before. It's a startling charge and, if true, explains a lot about Mr. Ritter's behavior. Has anyone seen other reports or documentation (outside Newsmax) for that assertion?
11
posted on
05/01/2003 9:50:48 AM PDT
by
katana
To: kattracks
This should cement his reelection bid. Claiming to be a Vietnam vet it turns out he did his "tour" in Long Beach CA.
12
posted on
05/01/2003 9:51:08 AM PDT
by
Mister Baredog
((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
To: SwinneySwitch
Get a rope!Yes, get a rope.
To: katana
Ritter took around $400k from this Iraqi, a good friend of Saddams, to make a "documentary" about Iraq. If you do a FR search on "Ritter," you can turn up a number of threads. This one has links to the stories about Burger King Boy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/750148/posts
14
posted on
05/01/2003 9:54:29 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: katana
Has anyone seen other reports or documentation (outside Newsmax) for that assertion?Ritter brags about it. It was susposidly to make a (anti-American) movie.
15
posted on
05/01/2003 9:55:52 AM PDT
by
Mister Baredog
((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
To: widowithfoursons
McDermott got a pass from Trent Lott on the wiretapping issue.McDermott's in the House; Lott's in the Senate.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House when the wiretapping incident took place.
16
posted on
05/01/2003 9:58:59 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: kattracks
bump
17
posted on
05/01/2003 9:59:44 AM PDT
by
VOA
To: sinkspur
But it was Trent who defended him.
To: Mister Baredog
Thanks. I'm embarrassed I missed that but I did. Maybe it's brought up every time the SOB shows his face on TV, it certainly should be, but I seem to have missed that too. Finally, I wonder if he's paid all the income taxes due on that money (around $150,000 at least).
As it's old news and the IRS would of course have been on the case I guess I shouldn't raise a fuss. It's just that a one ton load of bricks of some kind landing squarely on top of that pedophilic POS seems long overdue.
19
posted on
05/01/2003 10:06:35 AM PDT
by
katana
To: katana
Clear and present danger?
The first thing you need to know about this 2000 documentary, which explores the thwarted efforts of UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) to oversee the disarmament of Iraq, is that writer-director Scott Ritter is the former U.N. weapons inspector who noisily resigned from his position as head of the committee's Information Assessment Unit in 1998. The second is that $400,000 of the film's $500,000 budget came directly from the coffers of Iraqi-American businessman Shakir al-Khafaji, who, like Ritter, is determined to see ongoing economic sanctions against Iraq lifted. As the film's Senior Executive Producer, al-Khafaji accompanied Ritter to Baghdad and helped arrange interviews with various Iraqi officials, including Iraq's deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz. Ritter's writer-director credit, which makes it clear that he's calling the film's shots, doesn't appear onscreen until the end of the film. So his talking head appearances throughout which position him as one among a handful of experts, who include former UNSCOM executive chairman Rolf Ekeus, former UNSCOM spokesperson Tim Trevan and Aziz are at best disingenuous, and worst betray evidence of bad faith. The film opens with a fairly straightforward question: Why did the UN fail in its mission to disarm Iraq, and who is ultimately responsible? The answer is nowhere near so clear. The film traces Ritter's career with UNSCOM, founded in 1991 to oversee the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and guard against their future reconstitution. From the outset, there was widespread suspicion that Iraq's official declarations concerning its weaponry were less than truthful, and former-marine and intelligence analyst Ritter was brought in to help investigate Iraq's claims. Ritter agreed that Baghdad was lying, but also began to suspect that neither the UN Security Council nor the Clinton administration were fully committed to the mission, and that the U.S. intelligence community actually wanted to use Ritter's team to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq. The facts are all a bit cloudy. Contradicting his 1998 assertion that Saddam Hussein remained a serious threat, Ritter here claims that by 1995 UNSCOM had, in fact, effectively disarmed Iraq. Ritter calls Iraq a "defanged tiger" even as his film acknowledges that the Iraqis, who never fully came clean about their cache of chemical and biological weapons, were definitely hiding something and suggests the U.S. turn its attentions elsewhere. Released into theaters at a time when military confrontation between the U.S. and Iraq again seems immanent, a clear, unbiased documentary examining of the UNSCOM debacle would benefit anyone attempting to make sense of the dire situation. This, unfortunately, is not that documentary. Ken Fox
20
posted on
05/01/2003 10:07:12 AM PDT
by
kcvl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson