Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Tenet Comes Under Fire for Faulty Intelligence
Interview on July 11, aired at 17:00 ET
[CNN NOTE] THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND
MAY BE UPDATED.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/wbr.00.html follow link to see entire
program. Exept with Scott Ritter follows:
[BLITZER:] Let's focus some more on the controversy and the continuing hunt for
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Joining us now from Albany, New York, the
former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's also the author of a new book
just about to come out entitled "Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of
America."
No great surprise there, Scott, what you're going to tell us. But tell us right
now what you think of this uproar here in Washington over how this one line got
into the president's speech? Is it just an honest mistake that happened?
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: No, it's not an honest mistake.
It's part of a larger effort of deception that was, you know, taken by the
president, by his administration in regards to justifying this war with Iraq.
It's not just the nuclear issue, although that's the one that got the majority
of the senators and congressmen to change their vote back in October to support
this war. It's about chemical weapons, biological weapons, the entire case that
was made that Iraq has an ongoing program dedicated to manufacturing and
concealing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the security.
BLITZER: But Scott, reference to the nuclear sale, if you will, of uranium from
Niger to Iraq, that occurred in January after the October vote. So it wasn't
specifically designed to get senators and congressmen to support the resolution.
RITTER: Will, actually, Wolf, you're wrong on that one. That piece of
information, that intelligence was peddled by the CIA, in behind the door
briefings, two senators and congressmen in late September, 2002, and it was that
information amongst others, including the now what we know to be fraudulent
claim that aluminum tubes were going to be used in a centrifuge program, that
got many senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Intelligence
Services Committee or sat on the committee to change their vote. So it was just
part and parcel of a larger problem.
BLITZER: Yes, but I was suggesting that the State of the Union address came
after the congressional votes in the House and the Senate.
RITTER: Well, the State of the Union address is when the president made his case
to the American people, and he perpetrated the fraud to the American people at
that time. But this fraud was perpetrated to Congress back in September using
the same information. So, you know, this is -- this is a very broad-based issue
that needs to be delved into.
BLITZER: Let's get right to the issue at hand, though. Do you have any doubt
that Saddam Hussein would have loved to reconstitute his nuclear weapons
program?
RITTER: Well, you know, now, you're getting into speculation. What I have said
is we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting the nuclear
weapons program. And I tend to believe that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What about the equipment that was just
discovered the other day buried in the backyard of a former Iraqi nuclear
scientist that had been buried there since before the first war? They were
supposed to give all that stuff up, as you well know, as a result of the
cease-fire? RITTER: You're right on one point. As I well know. I led the
investigation into Mahdi Obeidi. I interviewed him for many hours, looking for
just this material. In fact, had the United States not pulled the plug on the
inspections I was trying to carry out in August 1998, we had plans to go to
Obeidi's house with ground-penetrating radar, to look for this material.
But I believe you'll find that when you dig deeper into the Obeidi case, he's
not telling the whole truth. Obeidi kept that material on his own volition.
Qusay and the security services, you know, didn't hand it out. And the bottom
line is, it's components of a nonexistent program. Nobody is trying to make the
case that what Obeidi had is representative of anything that represents a viable
nuclear weapons program worthy of war.
BLITZER: But that was a violation of what the U.N. -- the U.N. cease-fires had
called for, hiding that equipment underground.
RITTER: First of all, it's not equipment. It's components. It doesn't constitute
a viable centrifuge or centrifuge array (ph), and it's not part of a larger
program. Obeidi was in violation for maintaining this. Does the fact that he
maintained it represent a larger effort by the Iraqi government? We won't know
until the investigation is carried out.
But what I'm telling you is based upon my investigation, which went on for many
months and involved dozens of hours. Obeidi did this on his own. This wasn't
something that ...
BLITZER: But Scott, you know the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. You lived
there, you talked to these people. Did anything happen like that of a nature
like that, Obeidi doing this on his own without getting approval or someone
asking him keep this quiet? That was such a brutal regime. The guy wouldn't have
had the guts to do that on his own?
RITTER: Actually, again, Wolf, you're wrong. We have several cases of Iraqi
scientists who were very proud of the work they did. Remember, Obeidi was
competing with Dr. Diah Jaffar Al-Jaffar (ph) over, you know, who was going to
be the first to enrich uranium. He was proud of this program, and when he was
ordered to turn it over, I think he maintained these components and these
blueprints of his own volition, in a very similar manner that Iraqi scientists
responsible for designing guidance and control equipment did the exact same
thing.
BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, Scott. The two trailers, the
semitrailers, the trucks they found that a lot of U.S. intelligence officials
believe could only have been used to develop biological weapons, biological
warfare, I don't know if you've had a chance to even examine those reports, but
what do you make of that evidence?
RITTER: Again, it's not evidence of anything, Wolf. British experts who are very
familiar with the Marconi hydrogen generation equipment sold to Iraq in the
1980s have reviewed these laboratories and says it is an exact replication of
that. There's only one thing those labs could do, that is to produce hydrogen
for weather balloons. Biological experts, who know about manufacturing
biological agents say, you can not produce biological agent there.
So the president again has misled the American public and indeed the world.
When, a month ago, he was in Poland and said, the fact that we had these two
labs is proof that we have weapons of mass destruction. It's proof of nothing
more than the president has mislead, has fabricated, we don't have a weapons of
mass destruction program in Iraq to justify this war. What we have is a quagmire
with Americans dying on almost a daily basis and no end in site.
BLITZER: Scott Ritter has got a new book coming out, I believe, next week
"Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of America". We'll talk when the
book comes out again. Thanks, Scott, very much.
RITTER: Thank you.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/wbr.00.html
Page created July 13, 2003 by Charlie Jenks
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
14 Jul 2003 09:07:30 PM |
|
|
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
15 Jul 2003 07:48:50 PM |
|
|
Bet you don't know that George Tenet sometimes enters chatrooms
disguised as a 16 year old female? Just ask Saddam.
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
15 Jul 2003 09:27:43 PM |
|
|
"Don W. McCollough" a écrit :
Bet you don't know that George Tenet sometimes enters chatrooms
disguised as a 16 year old female? Just ask Saddam.
You would know, yeah right! LOL Fucking *****.
Drown yourself loser.
J.
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
15 Jul 2003 09:30:54 PM |
|
|
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony? Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
19 Jul 2003 12:19:32 AM |
|
|
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates. Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mxh" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 10:53:59 AM |
|
|
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307182119.391ffb6d@posting.google.com...
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He
will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really
should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though he
was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a
sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it pedophilia. If
I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Yes, very much like a "zionist apologist". And you seem to have missed the
point. His sexual adventures are just the icing on the cake. The cake itself
is that all facts point to the conclusion that he took money to change his
opinion. That's quite an indiscreation, and one that you seem to have chosen
to ignore.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Nor is it a declaration of innocence, which one would expect. There really
was no valid reason to refuse comment if he was innocent.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached,
When one has no credibility, his authority on any matter goes out the
window. But again, you forget that this is not about the sexual allegations,
but about the allegations of pocket lining. That *certainly* impeaches
anything he might have to say.
which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
Actually, you are the one focusing on the sexual "indiscretions" (most would
call it criminal acts). Once again, the real meat of this issue is the
allegations of bribery. A real credibility killer.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
Very much on topic. Part of the reason why so many correctly believe that
Ritter's opinion is worthless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 03:16:14 AM |
|
|
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates. Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 01:31:20 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates. Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists. Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
That's what you cannot stand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dune Runner" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 01:54:23 PM |
|
|
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201031.7d57b111@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend.
He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really
should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though
he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a
sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and not to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 09:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201031.7d57b111@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend.
He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really
should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though
he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a
sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and not to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq. You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him. Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
21 Jul 2003 01:21:51 AM |
|
|
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<IdISa.12180$ci.3933@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201820.694bf4f7@posting.google.com...
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a
desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of
your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and not
to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq.
Well, I wouldn't call it mudslinging. I've said nothing that can't be found
on dozens or more web sites. There *are* facts that support a conclusion of
guilt in the "pay off" scandal. And it *is* a fact that Ritter was arrested
twice on the same charge. Given those circumstances and the fact that he did
such an about face regarding Saddam and WMDs shortly after recieving a
quarter million dollars for a "documentary", I find that I can't possibly
put any stock in anything he has to say. Even if I were *against* the war, I
would regard Ritter's opinion as worthless, and in fact, would be
embarrassed to cite him.
You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him.
What insults have I "hurled"? I've stated well known facts and also provided
a few URLs. Would you like more? There are numerous sites out there that
present the facts. Yes, some are just partisan based, but many are objective
reports.
Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
No, the fact that *I* don't believe him doesn't make him wrong. I have doubt
in the validity of his opinion because of all I've stated above. And indeed,
the "evidence" against him is overwhelming.
evidence for the charge against Ritter was thrown out. A man is
innocent until proven guilty. Ritter was an on-site inspector.
Ritter's evidence is being borne out as factual. You impute
dishonourable motives to Ritter, but you have not proven that he lied
or mosrepresented the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dune Runner" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
21 Jul 2003 08:36:27 AM |
|
|
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307202221.c322620@posting.google.com...
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<IdISa.12180$ci.3933@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201820.694bf4f7@posting.google.com...
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter
of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a
desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort
to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact
of
your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and
not
to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be
taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am
not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a
nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq.
Well, I wouldn't call it mudslinging. I've said nothing that can't be
found
on dozens or more web sites. There *are* facts that support a conclusion
of
guilt in the "pay off" scandal. And it *is* a fact that Ritter was
arrested
twice on the same charge. Given those circumstances and the fact that he
did
such an about face regarding Saddam and WMDs shortly after recieving a
quarter million dollars for a "documentary", I find that I can't
possibly
put any stock in anything he has to say. Even if I were *against* the
war, I
would regard Ritter's opinion as worthless, and in fact, would be
embarrassed to cite him.
You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him.
What insults have I "hurled"? I've stated well known facts and also
provided
a few URLs. Would you like more? There are numerous sites out there that
present the facts. Yes, some are just partisan based, but many are
objective
reports.
Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
No, the fact that *I* don't believe him doesn't make him wrong. I have
doubt
in the validity of his opinion because of all I've stated above. And
indeed,
the "evidence" against him is overwhelming.
evidence for the charge against Ritter was thrown out. A man is
innocent until proven guilty. Ritter was an on-site inspector.
Ritter's evidence is being borne out as factual. You impute
dishonourable motives to Ritter, but you have not proven that he lied
or mosrepresented the facts.
Obviously, nothing is going to change your mind where Ritter is concerned,
but it raises an interesting question:
How do explain the fact that you can so vehemently apply those ethics to
Ritter, but have such difficulty applying them to Bush?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
22 Jul 2003 09:16:13 PM |
|
|
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201031.7d57b111@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend.
He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really
should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though
he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a
sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and not to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq. You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him. Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
He has no clue about the case against Iraq.
Iraq supported terrorism after 1441 against article 32 of 687e and
refused again, after 1441, to give any real information about the
Kuwaiti POWs, nor give back their national archives and threatened to
annex them again. 3 more infraction of the UN resolution which ONLY ON
guaranteed immediate lifting of the cease fire, the serious consequences
they say have been reiterated many times.
You have no clue, nor does he. Two traitors who kiss the ***** of Saddam.
Wouach.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
23 Jul 2003 12:51:25 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1DEFDB.9B912231@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201031.7d57b111@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend.
He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really
should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though
he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a
sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and not to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq. You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him. Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
He has no clue about the case against Iraq.
Iraq supported terrorism after 1441 against article 32 of 687e and
refused again, after 1441, to give any real information about the
Kuwaiti POWs, nor give back their national archives and threatened to
annex them again. 3 more infraction of the UN resolution which ONLY ON
guaranteed immediate lifting of the cease fire, the serious consequences
they say have been reiterated many times.
You are retarded. the case against Iraq was bogus. Ritter had
first-hand knowledge that has been borne out by UN inspectors.
Don't waste my time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
23 Jul 2003 05:02:44 PM |
|
|
George Kaplan a écrit :
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1DEFDB.9B912231@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
[snip]
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq. You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him. Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
He has no clue about the case against Iraq.
Iraq supported terrorism after 1441 against article 32 of 687e and
refused again, after 1441, to give any real information about the
Kuwaiti POWs, nor give back their national archives and threatened to
annex them again. 3 more infraction of the UN resolution which ONLY ON
guaranteed immediate lifting of the cease fire, the serious consequences
they say have been reiterated many times.
You are retarded.
Nope.
the case against Iraq was bogus.
Nope.
Ritter had
first-hand knowledge that has been borne out by UN inspectors.
Nope. I have shown you in a video from the two top (bio-chem and
nuclear) UN woprld experts that Ritter had no direct access to the
bio/chem or nuclear evidence that was in Iraq. It wasn't his job. You
chose to close your eyes... What is your agenda?
Don't waste my time.
Keep your propaganda lies illusions if you wish, since even the naked
truth doesn't dissuade you.
What could?
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry R" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
20 Jul 2003 11:14:37 PM |
|
|
Georgie Porgie doesn't want facts! He never has any true ones to back up
anything he says! He likes to lie verbatim, why should he let the truth get
in the way.
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:IdISa.12180$ci.3933@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307201820.694bf4f7@posting.google.com...
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<zpBSa.2029$09.1627@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists.
A little dramatic, don't you think? After all, it's really a matter of
opinion. If you don't agree with my opinion, does that make you a
desparate
liar? No. It means you have a different take on things. Why resort to
mudslinging? Do you feel that doing so somehow increases the impact of
your
point? Quite the opposite, I think. It makes you appear childish and
not
to
be taken seriously.
Ritter is
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
Obviously not in all circles, else this discussion would not be taking
place. I, for instance, have no respect whatsoever for him. And I am
not
alone in this. He has done this to himself. His carreer has taken a
nose
dive because of his actions. A paid opinion is worthless.
That's what you cannot stand.
Again, you miss the point.
I missed nothing. You are slinging mud at Ritter because he exposes
the dihinesty of the U.S. governmet's case against Iraq.
Well, I wouldn't call it mudslinging. I've said nothing that can't be
found
on dozens or more web sites. There *are* facts that support a conclusion
of
guilt in the "pay off" scandal. And it *is* a fact that Ritter was
arrested
twice on the same charge. Given those circumstances and the fact that he
did
such an about face regarding Saddam and WMDs shortly after recieving a
quarter million dollars for a "documentary", I find that I can't possibly
put any stock in anything he has to say. Even if I were *against* the war,
I
would regard Ritter's opinion as worthless, and in fact, would be
embarrassed to cite him.
You have
given no grounds for your case except to hurl insults at him.
What insults have I "hurled"? I've stated well known facts and also
provided
a few URLs. Would you like more? There are numerous sites out there that
present the facts. Yes, some are just partisan based, but many are
objective
reports.
Just
because you don't believe him doesn't make him wrong.
No, the fact that *I* don't believe him doesn't make him wrong. I have
doubt
in the validity of his opinion because of all I've stated above. And
indeed,
the "evidence" against him is overwhelming.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
22 Jul 2003 09:11:00 PM |
|
|
George Kaplan a écrit :
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates. Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists. Ritter is
Hahaha right, the video that I show he is a fraud is an authentic video
of the two top world UN experts and you dare still maintain your *****
hero over them. He had absolutely nothing directly to do with WMD, bozo.
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
That's what you cannot stand.
Ha, you mean respect from terrorists supporters...
Riiiiiiiight...
Loser.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry R" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
29 Jul 2003 06:45:13 PM |
|
|
George thinks "denial" is a river in Egypt.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F1DEE9D.B2FE6ECD@globetrotter.net...
George Kaplan a écrit :
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to
get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy
friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You
really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as
though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting
a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged
indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists. Ritter is
Hahaha right, the video that I show he is a fraud is an authentic video
of the two top world UN experts and you dare still maintain your *****
hero over them. He had absolutely nothing directly to do with WMD, bozo.
accurate adn commands great respect and supprt wherever he speaks.
That's what you cannot stand.
Ha, you mean respect from terrorists supporters...
Riiiiiiiight...
Loser.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
30 Jul 2003 04:50:38 PM |
|
|
(George Kaplan) wrote in message news:<2601e170.0307300907.466fc502@posting.google.com>...
"Norma" <norma2339@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vifi5ellm57088@corp.supernews.com>...
"George Kaplan" < > wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307292120.21d81669@posting.google.com...
That's it--keep up the denial about Zionist and American terrorists.
When will this pervert be gone?? His very name on my screen makes me want
to puke. We counted on his team and he openly lied, and then developed that
little perversion along with Saddam. I heard to many reports while in the
US Embassy in Riyadh. Norma
I assume by "pervert" you mean George Dubya. I concur. This beady-eyed
professional loser makes me want to puke, too.
yes, indeed!! Do you happen to catch his speech today? He can be
quite charmng, until you look and listen to our leader of the nation.
Norma
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
30 Jul 2003 04:34:38 AM |
|
|
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Larry R" <futures@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<1LDVa.2153$XK4.142038@read1.cgocable.net>...
George thinks "denial" is a river in Egypt.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F1DEE9D.B2FE6ECD@globetrotter.net...
George Kaplan a écrit :
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F1A4FD5.601393AC@globetrotter.net>...
George Kaplan a écrit :
"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:<__1Sa.898$wv6.61@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307180014.7aa4d6d3@posting.google.com...
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:<3F14B8E7.CF734733@globetrotter.net>...
Norma a écrit :
[snip]
news:<3F1361E5.12E23B54@globetrotter.net>...
Mike T a écrit :
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Another fucking loser. Makes himself some publicity to
get
popularity
with young 15 years old chatting chicks...
J.
Good G-d!! Is he still making the news? Why prolong the
agony?
Norma
What do you expect... He still has money left over from the
money he
made from the US$400,000 he got from one of Saddam's boy
friend. He will
make ***** as long as he can...
How typical of a Zionist degenerae likem you to libel Ritter for
someething that was thrown out of court for lack of evidence and
ignore his detailed analysis. Too close to the bone for you.
Heheheh...you make it sound as if he was falsely accused. You
really should
read these articles before you start calling people degenerates.
Although
the case was dismissed and "sealed", it sure doesn't sound as
though he was
innocent, nor, in the interview in the 2nd link, does he proclaim
his
innocence (I would be shouting it from the rooftops). He just
refuses to
comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634
Too much
of a coward to say anything intelligent.
Intelligence dictates investigation prior to comment...
You denigrate a genuine American hero because he tells
uncomfortable
truths.
I refuse to accept him as a credible source because *he* has sunk
his
credibility. First, he does an amazing aboutface, amid allegations
of
bribery, and then he's arrested not once, but twice for soliciting
a sexual
relationship with a minor.
Where I'm from, they don't call that a hero, they call it
pedophilia. If I
found out he was soliciting *my* daughter, I'd want to hurt him
severely.
You are putrid, Zionist Bushbaby scum
Is this part of your "intelligent" commentary?
Once again, like a Zionist apologist, you ignore the substance of
Scott Ritter's comments and drone on about his alleged
indiscretions.
Refusing to comment is not an admission of guilt.
Whatever he may or may not have done, his authority on the matter of
IArq and WMDs is unimpeached, which is why slanderers continue to
dredge up the irrelevant topic of the sexual indiscretion.
As if that was out of the blue.
His "authority" is totally discredited by the top UN inspectors.
(impeached? lol)
In stream: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.ASX
The file: http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Ritterscase.wmv
J.
Your emotional rant about your daughter is sincere but pointless.
Stick to the topic and quit blowing smoke.
He had absolutely no role no expertise nothing to do with the actual
research of weapons, he wouldn't know and if he says things it is only
from Saddam's side. But you kiss his ***** how would you know.
J.
You are a desperate liar, like all anti-Arab Zionists. Ritter is
Hahaha right, the video that I show he is a fraud is an authentic video
of the two top world UN experts and you dare still maintain your *****
hero over them. He had absolutely nothing directly to do with WMD, bozo.
accurate and commands great respect and support wherever he speaks.
That's what you cannot stand.
Ha, you mean respect from terrorists supporters...
Riiiiiiiight...
Loser.
J.
That's it--keep up the denial about Zionist and American terrorists.
Hahahahahaha these ONLY exist in your nightmares. WAKE UP!
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
31 Jul 2003 04:36:14 AM |
|
|
Norma a écrit :
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307292120.21d81669@posting.google.com...
"Larry R" <futures@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:<1LDVa.2153$XK4.142038@read1.cgocable.net>...
George thinks "denial" is a river in Egypt.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F1DEE9D.B2FE6ECD@globetrotter.net...
<snip>
When will this pervert be gone?? His very name on my screen makes me want
to puke. We counted on his team and he openly lied, and then developed that
little perversion along with Saddam. I heard to many reports while in the
US Embassy in Riyadh. Norma
Maybe when Scott runs out of Saddam's boyfriend money... Although now
that anti-US media pay him to blabber some more, it may take longer...
But he was more outspoken against Saddam when he was with the UN... His
180° unexplainable about-face occurred later when he was no longer with
the UN. He wasn't yet corrupted then.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
31 Jul 2003 04:41:16 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon a écrit :
Norma a écrit :
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307292120.21d81669@posting.google.com...
"Larry R" <futures@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:<1LDVa.2153$XK4.142038@read1.cgocable.net>...
George thinks "denial" is a river in Egypt.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F1DEE9D.B2FE6ECD@globetrotter.net...
<snip>
When will this pervert be gone?? His very name on my screen makes me want
to puke. We counted on his team and he openly lied, and then developed that
little perversion along with Saddam. I heard to many reports while in the
US Embassy in Riyadh. Norma
Maybe when Scott runs out of Saddam's boyfriend money... Although now
that anti-US media pay him to blabber some more, it may take longer...
But he was more outspoken against Saddam when he was with the UN... His
180° unexplainable about-face occurred later when he was no longer with
the UN. He wasn't yet corrupted then.
J.
BTW Norma, do you mean you heard things while he was with the UN? Maybe
the little twurp was already corrupted to the bone? After all, it didn't
take time before he attacked the rest of the UN team. But back then?
Care to elaborate? Or is this too touchy?
TC
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Kaplan" |
|
| Title: Re: Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports |
31 Jul 2003 10:32:10 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<3F28E448.63C428E6@globetrotter.net>...
Jean Guernon a écrit :
Norma a écrit :
"George Kaplan" <georgekaplan348@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2601e170.0307292120.21d81669@posting.google.com...
"Larry R" <futures@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:<1LDVa.2153$XK4.142038@read1.cgocable.net>...
George thinks "denial" is a river in Egypt.
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F1DEE9D.B2FE6ECD@globetrotter.net...
<snip>
When will this pervert be gone?? His very name on my screen makes me want
to puke. We counted on his team and he openly lied, and then developed that
little perversion along with Saddam. I heard to many reports while in the
US Embassy in Riyadh. Norma
Maybe when Scott runs out of Saddam's boyfriend money... Although now
that anti-US media pay him to blabber some more, it may take longer...
But he was more outspoken against Saddam when he was with the UN... His
180° unexplainable about-face occurred later when he was no longer with
the UN. He wasn't yet corrupted then.
J.
BTW Norma, do you mean you heard things while he was with the UN? Maybe
the little twurp was already corrupted to the bone? After all, it didn't
take time before he attacked the rest of the UN team. But | | | | | | | | | | | |
