• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal go to guy on Iraq busted again!

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,203
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A former chief U.N. weapons inspector and outspoken critic of President George W. Bush has been caught in yet another sex scandal with a person he believed was a teenage girl, according to news reports.

Scott Ritter of Delmar, N.Y., who served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98 and stated that President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, is accused of having sexual conversations and performing sexual acts on a Web camera in front of a police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl.

Scott Ritter arrested in another sex sting
Click to expand...


I am sure this will matter not to the libs. But what a loser this guy is.


j-mac
 
No MSM coverage at all on this? None? What garbage.
 
idk said:
New York Post, Fox News, NPR, BBC, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Telegraph, LA Times have all reported on it. What do you consider MSM?
Click to expand...

Didn't see that. My company's newspaper subscription lapsed. But apparently this has happened before and I don't ever recall seeing it. I don't consider it legitimate when liberals claim there is no media bias, "look ABC reported on it, you just have to navigate through these 30 clicks to get to the webpage with the 2 paragraph article."
 
gopman said:
Didn't see that. My company's newspaper subscription lapsed. But apparently this has happened before and I don't ever recall seeing it. I don't consider it legitimate when liberals claim there is no media bias, "look ABC reported on it, you just have to navigate through these 30 clicks to get to the webpage with the 2 paragraph article."
Click to expand...

So you believe an already discredited, no longer relevant medium-profile pervert being arrested, again, is front page news?

Also, who in this thread claimed there was no media bias? Or are you setting up a strawman argument? Well go ahead, build some false argument and have fun debating yourself.
 
idk said:
So you believe an already discredited, no longer relevant medium-profile pervert being arrested, again, is front page news?

Also, who in this thread claimed there was no media bias? Or are you setting up a strawman argument? Well go ahead, build some false argument and have fun debating yourself.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your definition of medium profile is, but one of the main figures of the Iraq war opposition doesn't qualify in my opinion. I do think it's big news.

I'm not arguing with you about media bias, and I'm not sure how I could be setting up a strawman in this context, I'm just mentioning something that I've observed that seemed relevant. If you don't want to read people's observations, don't visit message boards.
 
idk said:
So you believe an already discredited, no longer relevant medium-profile pervert being arrested, again, is front page news?
Click to expand...


This is NOT a medium profile person. I can remember early on in the Iraq war, when liberals were forecasting thousands of American troops deaths, Ritter was their 'man with the goods'..... The entire argument over WMD's being present was in part shouted down using this flawed man's testimony. Now that his character shows him to be a moral reprobate, the response is 'Scott Ritter? pfft! Who's that?'

As usual very disingenuous, IMHO.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
This is NOT a medium profile person. I can remember early on in the Iraq war, when liberals were forecasting thousands of American troops deaths, Ritter was their 'man with the goods'..... The entire argument over WMD's being present was in part shouted down using this flawed man's testimony. Now that his character shows him to be a moral reprobate, the response is 'Scott Ritter? pfft! Who's that?'

As usual very disingenuous, IMHO.


j-mac
Click to expand...

He was already proven to be a "moral reprobate" and has faded from view since. :beatdeadhorse

And like I originally said, what a disgusting person.
 
I am not entirely sure how his personal life discredits his work.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I am not entirely sure how his personal life discredits his work.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily, though his general judgment is seriously in question.

Now, his taking money from Saddam to finance his film, and then going to bat against the invasion after? That does.
 
j-mac said:
I am sure this will matter not to the libs. But what a loser this guy is.


j-mac
Click to expand...

In what respect should it matter? If you're a pervert, are you automatically wrong on everything?

It's certainly wrong, if true, and he should be punished like anyone else, but I'm unsure as to what else you think it should mean.
 
j-mac said:
Character, trustworthiness. Enemies often use embarrassment issues to blackmail those against them.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Even the worst of people can be right. One thing doesn't say anything about another.
 
Crunch said:
As long as he's a liberal that is.....
Click to expand...

Nope. Same across the board. One can be evil, mean, perverted, a criminal and still be right on another issue. It is a fallacy to say he's been a bad boy, so he can't be right about anything.
 
It's not a fallacy to say he has serious moral and character issues and therefore he's not trustworthy.
 
gopman said:
It's not a fallacy to say he has serious moral and character issues and therefore he's not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Well, concerning the issue of wmds, yes it is. He can be immoral with serious character issues and still do his job well. One thing does not equal another. You have to show a problem with him doing his job.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, concerning the issue of wmds, yes it is. He can be immoral with serious character issues and still do his job well. One thing does not equal another. You have to show a problem with him doing his job.
Click to expand...

Considering it was a political issue and judgment was involved, trustworthiness is very important. A court can ban someone from working in the securities industry for a committing a crime of moral turpitude. The crime may have nothing to do with securities analysis, but the US legal system clearly takes trustworthiness seriously, and we should too in this case. The handling of Saddam Hussein prior to the war in Iraq was completely botched, largely thanks to this guy.
 
gopman said:
Considering it was a political issue and judgment was involved, trustworthiness is very important. A court can ban someone from working in the securities industry for a committing a crime of moral turpitude. The crime may have nothing to do with securities analysis, but the US legal system clearly takes trustworthiness seriously, and we should too in this case. The handling of Saddam Hussein prior to the war in Iraq was completely botched, largely thanks to this guy.
Click to expand...

Different issue altogether. You may not ant him working for you, but it doesn't prove him inaccurate or wrong on this issue. You really have to do that separately instead of trying to short cut the work required.
 
Boo Radley said:
Different issue altogether. You may not ant him working for you, but it doesn't prove him inaccurate or wrong on this issue. You really have to do that separately instead of trying to short cut the work required.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "prove" anything, except that his judgment can't be trusted. That's is not a different issue, that's the heart of this issue. The UN completely botched the handling of sanctions and weapons inspections in Iraq. Not to mention the whole war thing.
 
gopman said:
It doesn't "prove" anything, except that his judgment can't be trusted. That's is not a different issue, that's the heart of this issue. The UN completely botched the handling of sanctions and weapons inspections in Iraq. Not to mention the whole war thing.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even prove that. It proves he has an issue with exposure and teens, and nothing at all concerning his judgment concerning his job.

Your opinion of batching is also not equal to botching. Quite frankly, they turned out to be exact right on the issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't even prove that. It proves he has an issue with exposure and teens, and nothing at all concerning his judgment concerning his job.

Your opinion of batching is also not equal to botching. Quite frankly, they turned out to be exact right on the issue.
Click to expand...

It really does prove he has judgment issues. He has the definition of judgment issues.

And you are off on your assessment of the UN. Not only was Saddam able to completely game the sanctions at the expense of his own people, he also had hordes of illegal weapons per UN mandate. The US never found the chem/bio weapons it was looking for (and according to your logic that doesn't "prove" anything either), but he had a massive stash of illegal missiles that were discovered fairly quickly, and he was recorded on tape destroying many more before the invasion.
 
gopman said:
It really does prove he has judgment issues. He has the definition of judgment issues.

And you are off on your assessment of the UN. Not only was Saddam able to completely game the sanctions at the expense of his own people, he also had hordes of illegal weapons per UN mandate. The US never found the chem/bio weapons it was looking for (and according to your logic that doesn't "prove" anything either), but he had a massive stash of illegal missiles that were discovered fairly quickly, and he was recorded on tape destroying many more before the invasion.
Click to expand...

No, you can have judgment issues in one area of your life and not in another.

And no, the UN was not off. They knew what he had and what he didn't have for the most part. And they knew what they had seen destroyed and what they had not. The missiles were not doubted either. Not a surprise to anyone, including the UN.

The US had no evidence to even believe there was any chem/bio weapons to start with. Unless you used doubted testimony by the likes of Libi, Curveball and Chalibi, there was no real reason to suspect anything more than what the UN had said all along. Absence of evidence really does mean you don't have squat. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom