![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article strikes me as having serious NPOV problems. From the counterposed "Seeing...As Threat"/Non-Threat section titles, to the phrasing of "sudden change", to the extended discussion of dropped criminal charges, this is an article intended to discredit Scott Ritter from beginning to end. I came to learn about Scott Ritter and his statements in the public sphere, not to read a litany of accusations. -mithras
"Ritter thought the US should have invaded long before we did" <-- If there is a source to support this, it should be in
the article. Currently, the article says, "we really needed the Security Council to step in in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."
"the Clinton Administration was afraid" <-- afraid of what? Starting a war with no reason? --
JWSchmidt
13:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If we are going to get serious about this article, I suggest that all references be placed in a numbered list and citations to those references be converted to this format. -- JWSchmidt 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
""the Clinton Administration was afraid" <-- afraid of what? Starting a war with no reason?"
-maybe you should ask Ritter that, since he was the one making the accusation :). Although Ritter did not to my knowledge say the US should invade, resolutions according to Ritter spoke of the "most severe consequences", and he wanted the US to live up to those.
"...seem to be dismissed by the fact that he had already made the shift by 2000."
-we´ve been through this, this does not dismiss or render allegations baseless, although they are still loose allegations and should not in any way be presented as fact. -Christian 83.227.193.148 12:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
On the 21st of October 2005, during an interview (towards the end [54:52]) with Amy Goodman at www.democracynow.org (interview available), Scott Ritter rectify this sentence mentioned in this article: "On February 18th, 2005 Scott Ritter announced to an audience in Washington that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005," by using the word "prepared" instead of "ordered". [ 82.120.71.27 13:33, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC) [1]
Oct 21, 2005 Democracy Now! Partial transcript of Scott Ritter interview, RealAudio streams, and MP3 downloads. As of posting time, this DN transcript does not contain the section of Ritter's interview in which he clarified his public speech, stating that "a lot of people" misunderstood the June 2005 date. Amy Goodman asked him if the Wikipedia article was correct, and Ritter's answer was somewhat convoluted. The Wiki sentence appears to be technically incorrect, not about the "ordered plans drawn up" part (awkwardly changed to "prepared" by 82.120.71.27), but the "to bomb Iran in June" part. However, Ritter focused on a recurring misunderstanding of the key word "ordered", and to set the record straight used the key word "prepared", clarifying that Bush ordered bombing preparations to be completed by June 2005, not an actual bombing. Ritter said his speech had listed a lot of preconditions to a future Iran attack that a lot of people had not remembered. For example, Ritter said that one of those preconditions was the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, which has now occurred. Ritter went on to make more strong statements about what was coming in regard to Iran, but these should await a fuller transcript. At posting time the DN Ritter segment is linked at the same page, but streams the entire 1 hour show. Ritter's Iran comments occur during file time 54:52-58:42. At posting time the DN Oct 21 entire show MP3 audio download is unavailable. Milo 09:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed from the article:
This implies the unverifiability of the statements. It probably can be restated in an acceptable fashion, but it cannot stand in this form.
--
Jerzy·
t 06:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The whole thing supposedly hinges on sealed records which AFAIK implies their contents are not verifiable. If it is verifiable that something was sealed, say so, but don't claim to know (or give the appearance of so claiming) what's in them! As i say, maybe it can be rewritten, but it is at best failing to make sense of what it is trying to say, in which case it needs to start by clarifying what "the records" embraces and how the fact of sealing can be verified.
--
Jerzy·
t 01:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As in most countries some US media commercially lean on the publication of gossip. That doesn't mean gossip should find its place in wikipedia. Otto ter Haar 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You guys might want to take a look at RonCram's recent changes to this page, which not only reproduce this gossip, but make it the basis of a claim that Scott Ritter was blackmailed or something else that is not really clear.-- csloat 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"I did not say Ritter's problems were known before the arrest."
-csloat
"his trouble with young girls is well known already, and was at the time" "it's not clear how he could be blackmailed with information that is already in the public eye"
-csloat
You´re gonna need Scott McClellan to get out of this one :)
Not saying that Wiki should present rumors (the blackmail part) as anything else than rumors, however the charges themselves are official and should be in, as are charges filed against other people found in their bios.
-sorry for anonymity, dont have the login on this comp. Feel free to delete this statement after the matter has been cleared up, however I just had to point out csloats statement discrepancies.
The documentary was made in 2000, at that time he was NOT arrested. His problems if present at that time were not known, thus he would have been "eligible" for blackmail. So if you didnt mean that his problems were known before his arrest, your point about blackmail being impossible would be wrong (so it´s either being wrong or calling McClellan ;) ).
In the National Review opinion piece (I know it´s hardly a news article) it is clear that Robbins is talking about why Ritter "changed his mind", and that the arrest (or rather the 2003 events in this case) suggested to Robbins that that was the reason. I´m still not sure as to what happened in 2003 as opposed to 2001 though, on Robbins it seems that the 2001 arrest was not known or confirmed until 2003, or something like that. CNN said in 2003 "he (Ritter) was angered that a case more than a year old would come to public attention now".
And I think you can agree that it is, regardless of one´s opinion on Iraq, quite interesting, that Ritter says in 1998 that without effective monitoring Iraq can reconstitute WMD, and then, after YEARS of inspection absence and thus without effective monitoring, he says the Iraqi WMD are not a problem. Furthermore his comments in 1998 can easily be interpreted as scolding the US and Clinton for NOT taking military action (although perhaps not as in an all-out invasion) when the Iraqi obstruct inspections. But then, after years without inspections and when the inspectors say again that the Iraqis are not fully cooperating, he is against taking action.
Anyway that is beside the point, the point is that the underage girl charges are not gossip but were reported in mainstream media. They have had an impact on Ritter´s reputation that´s real. So thus they are relevant, the speculation of whether Iraq could have "blackmailed" Ritter is perhaps not, but if the statement (made by Ritter) that the charges could be a smear attempt is in, maybe they kind of balance each other out in a sense.
193.11.218.40 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah.. first though I could speculate that stuff that was used for blackmailing was far worse than what has come out today (but yes this is pure 100% speculation). I dont know if he would be in the clear just because Saddam is gone. But yes these are not hard facts.
However, Ritter´s "defense" vs the charges is.. eh.. weak to say the least.. what I read he didnt even claim to be innocent, just that they had decided not to prosecute and that was the end of it he thought.
Anyway my point is that the charges themselves are hardly gossip and so they are relevant, especially since they affected Ritter´s reputation negatively and he was plagued by them when he was trying to voice his opinion on the invasion. That IS hard fact.
The speculation should IMO not be in there unless the article goes in-depth on their implications and different theories. The hard fact, that the charges were made and have hurt Ritter, should however be.
193.11.218.40 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, however his change in position (though IMO it´s rather his tendency to go Bull-in-china-shop in all his sayings than actual 180s) should be noted (which it is), and the charges should also be since they had an effect on Ritter´s credibility that was real whether or not the allegations were true. I´m in favor of cutting the blackmail part unless it is written as "Right-Wing.. speculation" or something of the kind, or if it is included together with Ritter´s argument that it was a smear.
As for "and the fact that a decision was made not to prosecute suggests that the case was weak at best."
It seems that this and that the seal meant he couldnt talk about it is what Ritter wanted to imply, but when challenged that the lawyers (for CNN) had said was no reason he couldnt talk about it, he dodged (the link is here on the wiki page). To me it seems far more likely that he agreed to some kind of therapy or similar than that he was innocent - but here we go, speculation again :). Still, the mention of the allegations themselves is not gossip since they actually happened.
Though I have to say something is off with Ritter. He just says very weird things, like:
"..effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once.."
While in interviews before his "change of opinion" he goes on again and again about how Iraqis obstruct efforts. Sealing off an inspection site from inspections for days, weeks even, and destroying ALL evidence within is not significant obstruction?
I guess he has a clear case that he did say Iraq was not fully disarmed but that the Bush administration had no real evidence that Saddam had reconstituted WMD programs. However in the administration´s defense they did have significant amounts of intelligence to that effect, it´s just that it was wrong :).
In Bush´s defense, ISG did find that Saddam was (1)in violation of sanctions, (2)he had forbidden equipment (though not weapons themselves), (3)he was going to get WMD as soon as sanctions ended and the opportunity arose, (4)he wanted military officials and his enemies in Iraq to think he did have WMD, and (5)the Bush administration was not alone in thinking he had WMD.
But then it´s hard to find anyone in the WMD mess who doesnt seem to have contradicted him/herself.
Sorry for turning this into a debate :) On-topic, what I want to say is again that the charges should stay but the speculation about blackmail should not unless the page takes the full step into revealing all the speculations.
193.11.218.40 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Although many internet sources list Ritter as born in 1960 (as did this article), in his book Endgame, Ritter talks about his 37th birthday on 15 July 1998. John Elder 2 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
"The sudden change in Ritter's point of view"
Can someone explain to me exactly what this "sudden change" was? --
JWSchmidt
00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That he first says that Saddam can get WMD in months if effective inspections are not taking place, and that the Iraqis obstruct and lie about their programs, then he now says there were no significant obstructions and that the threat from Iraq is low despite the passing of several years without inspections.
Ritter would probably say that he has not really changed his opinion, and it would be fair to put it as "apparent change in Ritter´s point of view". After all the statements are there so everyone can make their judgement on what he says.
83.227.193.148 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not see this "change in Ritter's point of view" as being mysterious. I suppose Ritter went to Iraq thinking that he could play an important role in arms inspections. In 1998 Ritter was fresh out of Iraq where his life had frequently been placed on the line by "intelligence" meant to provoke conflict with Iraq and reveal Saddam's patterns of movement. After a couple of years, the games that had been played by the intelligence community had been published and he had the chance to research what had happened in Iraq. Ritter realized that the inspections were a sham and that policy had been regime change, not disarmament. Yes, realizing that you have been a puppet of intelligence spooks could certainly change your point of view. It seems absurd for wikipedia to try to explain Ritter's changed point of view in terms of things like "brushes with police" and "Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq". -- JWSchmidt 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well you just apologized for him with a large post of complete and utter speculation. Congratulations, I guess you think we should print that in Wikipedia then?
Oh and the policy from 98 and on was regime change, this was official US policy. At this time Ritter also says he believes that Iraq may have disassembled WMDs and are hiding them throughout the country, and that the Iraqis are not complying with inspections. He also says they were not allowed (because the US werent prepared to make good on threats of military force) to inspect several sites that may have shed light on the issue. After this several years pass without inspections. What you are saying is that Ritter´s position after several years of being OUT OF the intellingence loop is more accurate than the one he had when he was IN the intelligence loop.
Ritter may say that he hasn´t changed his opinion, and it is up to anyone do decide if they think he really has, however there is a broad consensus that his statements are not compatible with each other, and some of them seem outright contradictory. The statements themselves are printed on the Wiki page so everyone can make up their own opinion, so what´s the problem?
193.11.218.40 12:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
"complete and utter speculation" <-- This is what prompted my comment (above). The article has a bunch of speculations including the idea that Ritter was a puppet of Saddam: "Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq". What evidence is there to support that speculation? It has been revealed that the CIA was using UNSCOM as cover for attempts to remove or kill Saddam, attempts that continued in secret from 1991 to 1998. "What you are saying is that Ritter´s position after several years of being OUT OF the intelligence loop is more accurate than the one he had when he was IN the intelligence loop." <-- Yes. That's the idea. After several failed coup attempts, UNSCOM was being given "intelligence" that would lead to inspections that could allow for identification of Saddam's location. When the inspectors left Iraq, Saddam's likely locations were attacked ( see). People like Barton Gellman played an important roll in telling the story of CIA activity in Iraq during the inspections. What is interesting is that during the Clinton administration it was people like David Wurmser, then at the American Enterprise Institute, who were promoting the idea that Saddam had WMD and it was Clinton administration policy that prevented the discovery of the WMD ( see). After the invasion of Iraq, we learned that there were no WMD. -- JWSchmidt 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
""Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq"."
- You have cut the beginning of that quote; "National Review editor James S. Robbins seems to believe that...". So it is not a wiki opinion nor fact, just a speculation. I don´t think it should be in, but it is not labeled as anything other than speculation.
"Yes. That's the idea. After several failed coup attempts, UNSCOM was being given "intelligence"..."
- I´m not denying this, but it has nothing to do with my point! The discrepancies in his statements are in relation to Iraqi WMD capabilities and Iraqi (non)obstruction, not in relation to intelligence infiltration.
And remember that Ritter actually resigned because he said the US did NOT want a confrontation with Iraq. Quote "...put pressure on the special commission to slow down, to postpone, to cancel certain operations because they would lead to confrontation, which the United States was not willing to step up to." (PBS interview). Of course soon after the US did get confrontational with Iraq and bombed. I don´t see what´s strange about using all kinds of intel to get good targets for an airstrike, doesnt mean that the only purpose of inspections was to map USAF targets or anything.
193.11.218.40 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Editors are deleting information about two important points. 1 - Ritter has claimed the charges against him were dropped. This is not accurate. You cannot say charges were dropped when the court has ordered him to attend sex offender counseling. The court cannot ordered anyone to do anything without a confession or conviction.
2 - Some people have claimed Ritter was never arrested. It is important to maintain in the article the point that his attorney has gone on record confirming he was arrested. RonCram 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the fact that you have made a new section for this topic, although I am not entirely happy with the heading, it will do for now. -- Wm 07:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Removal of the headings regarding Ritter changing his view on Iraq does not help the narrative. What caused Ritter to change his view? Why was he so willing to see the US go to war in 1998 when he was an weapons inspector? Why was Ritter a Saddam defender in 1999 or 2000? Removing the headings to obscure this sudden change is not helpful to readers seeking to understand Scott Ritter. The fact that Ritter changed his view after he resigned as a weapons inspector and no longer had access to classified information is important to readers. RonCram 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not normal practise in Wikipedia articles to attempt to pursue an argument and supply screeds of quoted text in that attempt. The extensive use of quoted material here makes the article almost impossible to read. For the most part, it should be sufficient to determine what facts can be taken from the source material and then make those statements with reference to the source material.
We should remove the quoted material, summarise the facts and make reference to it. -- Wm 06:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The major discrepancy in Ritter's stances on Iraq's WMD capabilities come down to the following 1998 and 2002 interviews.
August 31st, 1998
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have proscribed weapons?
Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability."
WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
[www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/826175/posts]
July 17, 2002
SWEENEY: Let's ask what you believe the weapons of mass destruction situation is in Iraq at the moment.
RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.
SWEENEY: And how do we know that hasn't been happening?
RITTER: We don't, but we cannot go to war on guesswork, hypothesis and speculation. We go to war on hardened fact. So Tony Blair says he has a dossier; present the dossier. George W. Bush and his administration say they know with certainty; show us how you know.
I think it is possible to clean that up, if Ritter's view change was given a separate heading and his legal troubles given a separate heading. Would that make sense to you? RonCram 06:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This simple fact has to be addressed and given ample space. Wm wrote that it was not Ritter's viewpoint that changed but that he observed a change. This is ridiculous. Ritter did not change his viewpoint until after he had resigned as a weapons inspector. Ritter did not have any new information that he could have observed. He was out of the picture. That is the main point. With an absence of new information, Ritter suddenly and inexplicably changed his view on the danger of Saddam and his WMD capability. That point has to be discussed and illustrated with proper quotes for this article to be helpful. Censorship will not be allowed. RonCram 06:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Could we please have a reference regarding the claims about Shakir al Khafaji regarding the funding of the film and the Oil for Food program. -- Wm 09:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Wm, you cannot say there is a controversy surrounding the fact Ritter dramatically changed his point of view and then remove the evidence of the dramatic change so that your viewpoint seems reasonable. Your POV is showing. Ritter did not just say the weapons were there in 1998 and not there in 2000. Wm, you really need to read the sources before you try to edit the page. If you would only take the time to read the sources first, you would see the point. Ritter claimed that Saddam would NEVER change. He claimed that Saddam could reconstitute his weapons programs in a matter of months if not constantly supervised, and he probably was doing while the inspectors were there because the UN would not let the inspectors be confrontational enough. Ritter changed his view after he resigned so he no longer had access to information the UN and Bush Administration had. How could he learn anything new that would convince him Saddam had changed his spots? Wm, please read through all the sources before doing anymore editing. RonCram 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Here are extracts of a Washington Post story of Friday January 8, 1999 which should be reflected in the article. It's headed "U.S. Says It Collected Iraq Intelligence Via UNSCOM" and was written by Thomas W. Lippman and Barton Gellman. It doesn't appear to be reflected in the article at the moment. Full article is here.
...
...
...
David | Talk 16:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
David, I would like to see the information from this story including in the article. Unfortunately, Wm is busy deleting valuable information at the moment. See below. If you have time to make the appropriate entry, it would be appreciated. RonCram 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
"Iraq certainly did have prohibited weapons prior to 1998" <-- this statement seems to be so vague as to be nearly meaningless within the context of its use in the article. If you read Ritter's comments (in the sources provided in the article) from the time shortly after he left Iraq in August 1998, it seems that he was concerned that Iraq had "components of ballistic missiles illegally retained by Iraq". Similarly, he was concerned that Iraq could begin to produce WMDs within six months of the end of inspections. That was his position in 1998. Why is saying "Iraq certainly did have prohibited weapons prior to 1998" relevant to deciding if Ritter had a fundamental change in his views? -- JWSchmidt 18:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Wm has deleted information, mainly Ritter's own words, showing Ritter's dramatic and sudden change of viewpoint regarding Saddam after Ritter had resigned as a weapons inspector. By making these edits, he is able to redeem his failed view that Ritter's change in viewpoint was somehow gradual or based on new evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. By cutting down the full quote to just a few words, there is no way to see the contxt or the intensity with which the words are spoken. There can be no doubt that Ritter was pro-war during the Clinton Administration (and very frustrated that Clinton and the UN were not more confrotational) to a change to being antiwar during the Bush Administration. From 1998 to 2000, Ritter was not a weapons inspector and had no access to classified information. What caused him to change his mind? Ritter's answers in his film are far from satisfactory. If Wm wishes to document Ritter's reasons in his own words, that would be a helpful addition to the article, but deleting information to make it look like Ritter never changed his view or that he changed because he had access to classified information is false and deceptive. Readers of Wikipedia deserve better. RonCram 15:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
RonCram. The quote by Bidden does not show what Ritter's views about invasion were. It is something you are attempting to infer but is not explicit in the quote. Why can't you provide a reference that either quotes Ritter directly and expressed the view that you claim that he held, or failing that, provide reference that states directly that Ritter held that view. What you are infering from the quote you provide is a long way from what is explicitly stated. It seems bizarre that you are attempting to make this argument with this reference, it shows nothing about Ritter's views of the invasion, only that he did not have the authority to decide on invasion which is obvious and would not be disputed by anyone.
Second, AFAIK it was not necessary to invade in order to conduct an inspection process, I had the impression that the inspection process was under way and was called off to facilitate the invasion. Your argument seems very vague and very inconsistent? Please, we need to strip back this article and clean it up. It is not appropriate attempt to persuade by evidence within the article as you seem to be attempting. We should form a factual conclusion, state it as simply as possible (but no simplier), and provide references to support it. The article is is not a place to put forward a viewpoint. Cut down to simple facts first, then describe various opinions held by various people. -- Wm 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
"It is alleged by some that after Ritter had resigned his position as weapons inspector, his viewpoint on the danger of WMD in Iraq changed in some discreditable way because while for example, on August 31, 1998, he stated that Iraq had "proscribed weapons capability" but then after he had resigned he began to express the view that Iraq was no longer a serious threat."
Will someone please tell me who alleges this? I have read the entire talk page, and I haven't as yet once seen a source to a significant commentator who believes Ritter changed his position. In this I agree with Wm - please find a source for this! I am perfectly happy to agree that this is the case, but I can only do this if we can provide a citation. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Wm, the only one I know of who disputes it is Ritter himself. He denies he changed just as he denied that he knew the funding for his film came from Saddam. Yet, he knew the man who funded had close ties to Saddam. Ritter denied he was arrested claiming it must have been some other Ritter. I will give you an assignment: Find a publication that thinks Ritter's views have not changed. RonCram 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Although I would generally consider myself to be on RonCram´s "side", in this case he is wrong - but not entirely. Ritter´s "change" in position should not be reported as such, especially in the way it is now. The reason I say this is that Ritter says he hasnt changed his mind and offers arguments for this. He says that he has never given Saddam a "clean bill of health". Before the war, he says that Iraq may have reconstituted WMDs, but that conclusive evidence of this has not been presented (which is true, and the administration didnt really claim they had any conclusive and irrefutable evidence). In this case he´s not really "changing" his view anymore than the administration - like the administration, he can be said to be judging a specific situation based on what he knows. The administration viewed Iraq in a different light after 9/11, and Ritter viewed Iraq in a different light because of the threat of invasion. IMO however he did present views that can be interpreted as clashing, and this should be reflected. Why not divide this part of the article into "views before XXXX" and "views after XXXX" or something similarly NPOV, with XXXX being the point of time in which the apparent change took place. Then we have the info there, and structured, but not POV.
Also, Ritter did not AFAIK advocate invasion, he advocated "tough measures", "stepping up", "confronting" or something of that sort (the quotes are not his actual words I dont remember those). Just put his statements as quotes on the page and people can decide for themselves if they thought he had a change of heart.
-Christian 83.227.193.148 12:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the opening paragraph the most transparent partisanship on the 'pedia today? Isn't Ritter better known for his strict adherence to chasing teenage girls through the internet? Crid 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I live in the same area as Ritter, know the abandoned Burger King resturant where he was busted by the police. I worked in the Albany, NY -area media at the time and know all about his little "lapse." The Albany county assistant district attorney who cut him the deal was fired by the district attorney because if of it. If that alone doesn't speak volumes toward the truth, then you must be deaf. There is absolutely no doubt the reason Ritter went to that abandoned Burger King was to meet what he thought was a 14-year old girl and masturbate in front of her. The record may have been sealed, but the details were leaked to the press. The man is a pervert. Even though I am against the Iraqi occupation, I'd rather Ritter join some other side, or leave the country alltogether. Because of his lapse into perversion he is more of a liability to the anti-war movement than a gain. Yeah, maybe Ritter has never been convicted of a crime involving teenage girls, but then Hitler was never convicted of killing a Jew. Doesn't mean both didn't happen. -- Jango Davis 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Ritter is not known for his early career as a intelligence officer, as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and more recently as an opponent to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. None of those things get you on national news. Ritter has received national and international notoriety by being an outspoken critic of people who fail to adhere to consistency, facts, and agreements in those three areas.
I have restored the sections on Ritter's legal problems and the quotes regarding Ritter's bizarre turnaround. It is beyond me how wikipedia editors can delete information just for POV reasons. Do you really think that people are going to forget about Ritter's bizarre change? Or the fact his movie was financed out of Saddam's Oil for Food money? Or that he was arrested? RonCram 01:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ZyMOS that the article dwells a little too much on anti-Ritter details from partisan sources. I tried to tone that stuff down with my previous edit, and I thought the result was a pretty good step toward neutrality. I think maybe we could further trim the section about legal entanglements but keep the charge that this left him open to blackmail - it was prominantly discussed in the mainstream media and is a significant reason for his marginalization, whether the charge is true or not. As long as the proper caveat is in place ('unsubstantiated by evidence') I think it is relevent & neutral to mention it. Also, I agree that a full discussion of the documentary would improve the article, but I haven't seen it and feel unqualified to write one - I don't think we should flag the article for NPOV just because no one has written that section yet. Anyone else agree the flag should be removed with or without minor changes?
Rustavo
04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Added news references to the Albany County District Attorney's handling of the case, including the firing of the assistant district attorney who cut a deal to dismiss the charges against Ritter without the DA's knowledge or approval. -- Jango Davis 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Restored deleted reference regarding the Albany County District Attorney's handling of Ritter's case. -- Jango Davis 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Restored deleted entry under Legal Problems with teh dates of both of Ritter's arrests. This is a strictly factual report. Why does the truth bother Ritter supporters so much? Oh yeah, cause its the truth! -- Jango Davis 13:28 (UTC) 27 September 2006
OK, so I just posted two new sections in the Scott Ritter article. The first is a quick overview of his opinions, book, and film following the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998. The second is a description of his views about the WMD issue prior to the 2003 war, primarily through quotes from the book he did with william rivers pitt. In my opinion this improves the article, because it gives more info about what Ritter was saying in this period, before later sections delve into the whole controversy of why he might have been saying it. I'm kind of a noob here, so I look forward to people's edits and thoughts on my work. - Rustavo
Just made some more changes to the Ritter article. I moved the Iran comments section up so that it comes just after my Iraq prewar comments section. This seems like a more logical arrangement to me. I also edited the criticism of Ritter section and the section about his legal troubles. In the Criticism section, I tried to flesh out the change in Ritter's public statements between 1998 and afterwards, and I cut out the quotes of pundits criticizing his position changes. To my mind, this stuff wasn't very neutral, and didn't really contribute to the article - it seems better just to explain what he said and when he said it, and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to whether he is "bizzarre" or "chameleon-like" In the section dealing with Ritter's legal problems, I tried to shorten it, since it doesn't seem especially relevent to his public role, and a lot of it seemed speculative and written in such a way as to imply that he "got away" with serious crimes due to prosecutorial mishaps - even though no details of the actual charges are in the public record. Also, I'm sorry for not filling in the nature of my edits in the correct spot - I'm learning as I go along. Look forward to hearing what people think Rustavo 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved some of the uncritical articles out of the criticism section. Orville Eastland 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing speculative about Scott Ritter's attempt to molest a someone he throught was a teenage girl, but who turned out to be a state trooper. I live in Albany, NY and worked near the abandoned Burger King where he was arrested when he showed up for his "date." He charmed a local female ADA into the deal that got him off, which she was fired for because it happened without DA Paul Cline's permission, who lost the next election in part due to his lack of leadership and control of his staff in the Ritter case. You can bet if Cline knew about the deal he would have quashed it and hauled Ritter into a very public court. Ritter absolutely got away with a perverted attempt to sexually abuse what he thought would be a teenage girl. After all this, not only do I question Scott Ritter's creditibility to even claim the sky is blue, but I have to question the agenda of anyone who would dilute the truth of his crime. I'm against the war in Iraq, but I'd rather this pervert keep his mouth shut and move out of my region. I will be keeping my eye on the section about his legal problems so this section does not get furthered watered down so as to dilute the truth of Ritter's perversions. -- Jango Davis 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not falsify and statements by the DA. You must be really desperate to believe what is documented on the public record is my falsification. I have posted only what was documented in the news. I live in Albany, worked by the place Ritter was arrested, I've worked in the Albany-area media and know what was said. The DA's position on the "deal" the ADA made with Ritter behind the DA's back is evident by the DA's firing of that ADA. One must wonder what your real agenda is if you feel that you must so vociferously defend Ritter's attempt at child molestation. The readers of this record can decide for themselves who has creditibility here. My creditibility is not in question, only Scott Ritter's character and the questionable motives of those who defend his attempt at child molestation.- 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You're defense of perversion is pathetic and desperate. Cline's actions speak for themselves. He fired the ADA for cutting the Ritter deal behind his back and without his knowledge or approval that is fact. But of course, the FACTS are the one thing you Mr. Scott "Pervert" Ritter's supporters dislike. Now, when you are on the losing side of the moral high ground in the perverted swamp with Ritter, who want to squelch discussion on the discussion page because you don't like it...POOR BABY...what are you gonna do, cry now? I can "discuss" whatever I want to discuss about that pervert on the DISCUSSION PAGE. That's why it's called a DISCUSSION PAGE. Just like my fellow liberals...all for freedom of speech except when you find yourselves on the losing side of argument, then you pull out Roger's rules.
Now you're just lying about your position. You fully support that pervert and lack the spine to say so. The only creditability in question here are those who continue to defend the actions of an attempted child molester, such as yourself. The only ones I've heard defend Ritter are my fellow anti-war advocates so desperate to believe in there's a "conspiracy" against Ritter because he's against the war. That's a crock of shit. Ritter's creditability as an anti-war advocate is in the toilet because that's where his morals and character resides...in the crapper. But hey, I guess the world's perverts need their advocates too, so good for you. But the only thing a pervert-supporter can creditably prove on this forum is that he supports perverts. I think that raises more questions about YOUR creditability and character than it even does about Ritter's. I mean, what worse? An adult male who thought he'd get a chance to masturbate in front of what he thought would be a 14-year old girl, or someone who wants to defend his right to do so, like you. History will only remember Scott Ritter for his attempted child molestation. Absolutely nothing Scott Ritter has ever done before or since will be remembered. That is the legacy he leaves this world, and the world would be richer without it.-- Jango Davis 20:54 (UTC) 19 July 2006
There seems to be an unfair emphasis in this biography under "Documentary" and "Legal Problems". Negative criticism of Ritter and very negative speculation about an alleged quid pro quo between Ritter's documentary's funder and the Iraqi government are included without even having citations; yet when I added some information to the biography under "Legal Problems" suggesting that CNN might have its own motives for digging up an 18 month old already-dismissed misdemeanor charge on Ritter it was later edited out; and my edit WAS sourced. So I have now added Ritter's own POV about CNN's motives as quoted from one of the CNN articles that this biography itself has already cited. I thought it was Wikipedia policy to include several POVs and not just one. Ritter's POV about CNN's motives surely are relevant. I also added some sourced speculation about CNN's motives for criticizing Ritter; presumably this should be at least as useful as UNSOURCED speculation about an alleged quid pro quo between the guy who funded Ritter's film and the Iraqi government.
Ritter's question about CNN's timing seems to me to be crucial. Why would CNN, a national source of major current news, have dug up a story 18 months old involving a smalltown already-dismissed misdemeanor charge? As far as I can think it must have seemed necessary to someone to try to uncover dirt to discredit Scott Ritter's opposition to the upcoming Iraq war. What other motivation might there be for the belated attention to this on major news source CNN? This is a very common tactic in the US today: if you don't like what someone is saying in public you try to find something in the person's background to discredit them and encourage the public to dismiss what they say.
And how about the timing? CNN airs these old charges on January 21, 2003, less than two months before the invasion began and as the Bush administration is trying to convince the nation it must go to war with Saddam over his WMD. But the former chief inspector, who spent 7.5 years hunting for these WMD in Iraq, had recently stepped forward and aggressively opposed the war stating, accurately as it turns out, that Saddam probably didn't have the WMD Bush et.al. alleged he had. And, if you read about Ritter you'll find he does almost everything in a passionate, gung ho manner. On September 8, 2002 Ritter personally went to Iraq and addressed the Iraqi National Assembly, pleading with them to cooperate with inspections and avoid war (see "Frontier Justice", chapter 2). It was on the day he addressed the Iraqi National Assembly that so many of CNN's negative characterizations, reported in the Toronto Star opinion piece, were made. Then, about four months later, CNN discovers major news that Ritter had these 18 month old legal charges. I think the timing of CNN's airing of the "news" of Ritter's legal problems plus the sort of comments made about Ritter by CNN personnel, cited in the Toronto Star article I also mentioned, provides a pretty strong prima facie case that CNN was out to discredit Ritter.
This biography spends four paragraphs and gives four separate citations, some from lesser and local news sources, focusing on these legal charges, but any POV which might balance and provide context for the airing of these charges 18 months after they were dismissed has been edited out . That's neutral?
And what does a dismissed misdemeanor charge about someone's having wanted an underage girl to watch them masturbate have to do with the value of someone's observations about the existence of WMD in Iraq? In general, I think I'd say it would have little to do with it, but this is a very specific case. Scott Ritter just happened to be a unique source of info about this question. He was inspecting Iraq for 7.5 years for these weapons, very aggressively and at risk of his own life (read "Endgame" or "Iraq Confideential" if you think this is an exaggeration). He was extremely gung ho and very aggressive in these inspections and was promoted to lead inspector because of his performance. It's difficult to think of someone with a more informed position to comment on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He was asked to testify in front of a US Senate committee because of his recognized expertise in this matter. bondjel,9/12/2006 -- Jango Davis 28 Sept. 2006 3:58 AM (UTC)
This is the discussion page and the perfect place for it, although I know how much those of you who support the right of people who think they're important to sexually abuse teenagers would like to shut down the truth. I've only posted verifiable facts on the article page and have responded to the wild and paranoid accusations of the pro-pervert lobby on the discussion page, such as bondjel's bizarre "hey, attempted child sex abuse is no big deal" rant above, which apparently you have no problem with because it reflects your own view as well, so don't try to tell me or anyone else you are an objective reporter here because everything you said can be applied DIRECTLY to you. In other words, don't piss on my back and tell me its raining, cause nature is just going to piss right back and give you the same weather report. Wikipedia opened the door with a poorly planned and poorly executed idea for open-source information and I'm walking in. Deal with it. -- Jango Davis 10:32 am (UTC) 28 September 2006
Wow, that's quite desperate and slightly hallucinatory. No where do I say that on this page and you claiming it doesn't make it so. You do however, appear to support Blondel's premise that minimizes the crime of Riiter's attempt at child sex abuse, so, as with Blondel, you must clearly believe that Ritter's crime is miminal, so don't read into something that isn't there, no matter how much you'd like it to be true, such as that Ritter is not a pervert who attempted twice to sexually molest who he thought who be a tennage girl. Very lame, but keep trying though. You got spunk kiddo. -- Jango Davis 10:19 AM (UTC) 29 Sept. 2006
Hey Jango, quit deleting the sentence "CNN reported that "Clyne refused to discuss the case, noting there is no public record of it." I'm sure you'll tell us that CNN is run by child-molesters but I'm not sure how censoring this sentence helps cover up Ritter's attempted string of brutal masturbatings.-- csloat 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the original post so I'm not messing with your post, you're messing with mine by repeatedly adding something that was not there to begin with. -- Jango Davis 01:08, 04 Oct. 2006 (UTC)
I cut out a potentially libelous line about Ritter that had a dead link and for which I could find no corroboration. It was supposedly sourced to WTEN-TV news but a search on their website finds exactly zero references to Ritter. 88.100.20.254 20:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The link is DEAD. It is not a dead link within WND, it is a dead link supposed to UPI and also to WNET TV. Please show me where the policy on dead links is. Please show me where the list of legitimate news sources is, since if Wikipedia considers World News Daily to be a legitimate source, it is deserving of the bad reputation it is receiving. Vincent.fx 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Jango you're pushing the 3RR with this silly mugshot. I've asked you several times to read WP:BLP and to engage in the discussion here. You've stopped bothering with the discussion and you keep putting this nonsense up. I don't have a problem with a link to an article showing a mugshot, but the claim "hey look at this dude's mugshot! creepy, eh?" just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please remove it, and please engage in the discussion, and please mind Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:BLP, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA. Thanks!-- csloat 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Tom Delay's mug shot is posted right on the main page of his article so methinks thou protestest too greatly. Clearly, I have precedent on my side and prehaps you are misinterpeting the rules. -- Jango Davis 01:12, 4 Oct. 2006
Look deeper into Wiki Derex and you'll Rush Limbaugh's mugshot is also posted in his Wikipedia article, and his case is not only not resolved, but also is not connected to the activities for which he is noted. So, again, the Wikipedia standard is that Ritter's mugshot CAN be posted. All I'm doing is posting a link, not the mugshot itself as both Delay's and Limbaugh's articles do. I think both those examples (Limbaugh's aprticularly) are clear evidence that the posting of mugshots is relevant and allowed. Our dear "editor's" position to the contrary is becoming somewhat similar to, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" So Sloat's interpetation of the rules is incorrect based on existing Wikipedia standards and practices. Now all I need do is figure out how to post Ritter's mugshot like it is posted in Limbaugh's and Delay's articles and we're good to go! -- Jango Davis 19:41 5 Oct 2006
And likewise you are incorrect in asserting that Ritter's is not noted for his arrest, indeed, most people likely never heard of him before it, so THANK YOU for proving my point! However, once again sir you purposely misundertsand me or don't read my posts. The mugshot doesn't bother me, it bothers you so you need to resolve the issue, not me. Your interpetation is subjective and not reflected by already established "communty" practice, even if there is no set standard for mugshots. And if there is no set standard then what point are you trying to make since you have no standard to support your position and I have clear established examples? The mugshot is a vaild and relevant news item otherwise buried unmentioned in a link in an article, so there is worth to pointing out to the reader its existance as an external link. The question is, why are you so attached to deviating from the standard and insisting on deleting the reference? I am simply posting a link to a mugshot not mentioned in the Wiki article and absolutely relevant to establishing the fact Ritter was arrested. You are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. Your interpetation is not reflected by other Wikipedia articles. Posting the link is consistant with current Wiki practices, indeed, if I wanted to post the picture, that would be find as well. You clearly have a problem with the Delay and Limbaugh mugshots so YOU need to delete those pictures and start the "discussion" about mugshot psots on thsoe pages. I'm good with it. It's clearly common practice. What's the problem then? Put your money where your mouth is Sloat and delete those mughots on Delays and Limbaugh's articles. Tell you what. Delete those mugshots on those articles and if the "community" on those pages agrees with you I'll reexamine my position, provided if you also agree that if the community on those pages feels posting the mugshots is relevant then you'll reexamine your position. Just put your money where your mouth is man, that's all I'm saying. This is not my issue, it's yours because your interpetation is different from current Wiki practice whereas my posting a link to the mugshot is not only consistant with current Wiki practice, but a level tamer than posting the actual mugshot as they do. -- Jango Davis 02:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few additional changes to "Legal Problems." I think its pretty clear that Jango Davis has strongly emotional views about Ritter and has made the "Legal Problems" section as long and repetitive as possible because he wishes Ritter's character besmirched. I removed some detail that just made it longer and more drawn out. As others have said, it seems arguable whether this material belongs in a bio of someone clearly known primarily for being a weapons expert and political commentator. Is there some Wikipedia rule that speaks to this? The fact of the arrest is undeniable. The facts that several news organizations picked it up and commented upon it are undeniable. But how relevant is this to his primary reason for meriting a bio and how much space in his bio should it take up? bondjel 10/21/2006
Its amazing how much milage I got tweaking you Wiki geeks...hee hee -- Jango Davis 01:35 17 Jan. 2007 (UTC)
-- Paul Moloney 22:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Paul Wolfowitz no less acknowledge the US gov't smear campaign against Ritter so that has been referenced and cited. Vincent.fx 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)