Scott Ritter: "I want the president impeached because he lied to Congress."

Ritter's a child-molesting tool.

This guy sounds like Michael Moore's raquetball partner.

Now that the insults are out of the way, does anyone actually want to discuss what this Republican actually said?

No, Micah, because in America, even when the charges are dismissed you're still guilty.

Bah he gave up on the party a long time ago. Or more percisely we gave up on him.

Just a shrill trying to make waves.

And I think we have been discussing this out the wazo lately anyways.

Which Republican? Ritter? The jerk's got an axe to grind! I've read some of the things he says to receptive Northeast University professors and the dude is a tool of the anti-war faction. Nothing more.

I don't know what his problem is, but he probably should have been doing more actual research rather than soliciting 14-year-olds over the internet.

Did I miss something? What does him being Republican have to do with ANYTHING?

Morons are morons, despite party affiliation. I thought we were past this already.

My point is that each and every one of those quotes sounds like something Michael Moore would say.

OK, so no one wants to discuss what was actually said?

Cool.

What's there to say? He's a little over the top, to say the least. You either agree, you don't, or you agree somewhat. I don't see what else is even up for debate or "discussion".

Personally, I think the guy's pissed because some of his friends in Iraq probably went away.

You just answered your own question. Michael Moore is the antithesis of a Republican, so when a Republican says these things, it should create an interesting conversation for why he speaks so uncharacteristically to his party affiliation.

But why bother....let's just call him a moron, child molester, etc., and go about our day.

Actually, I try to separate Liberal/Moderate/Conservative from automatically equating to Democrat/Party X/Republican. But apparently that's just me.

It's obvious this guy couldn't be further away from Bush politically. Hence, his being a Republican doesn't mean anything. It's political idealogy we're dealing with here.

His statements were extreme and hateful. And I can't stand such (from EITHER side). That's about all I can say on the matter... other than pointing out that he sounds like a Michael Moore stand-in.

That should be its own thread, Englebert.

Why does this guy's history with 14 year olds on the internet invalidate his first hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq? GW Bush was a cokehead and alcoholic, yet we don't get to hold that against him.

Kronos, don't you in fact have a checkered past? I would say that his peccadillos would keep him from public office but have nothing to do with what he knows about Iraq, which I think is an awful lot more than what you picked up on Drudge.

That's right! It's obvious Ritter knows much more about 14 year old Iraqi children than we do.

Okay, Devin... calm down. These threads need doses of humor, if even sick.

</strong>

It does mean something. Maybe I'm giving Republicans more credit than they deserve, but I do not believe they are a monolithic entity all hellbent on the same ideological crusades as the Religious Right.

There are many different types, many of whom are quite far away from President Bush politically, yet not at all alike each other. Pat Robertson is away from Bush politically. So is Olympia Snowe. So is Scott Ritter. So is - as of today - The NRA (because he's putting his support, at least in name, behind the extension of the assault weapons ban).

They all have different political ideologies and differ with each other, but they all ALSO differ with Bush for different reasons. That's what I'm trying to discuss, and why him being a Republican is relevant to this discussion.

Extreme, sure. But hateful? In what way? He called him a liar, and then pointed out the lie. Other than the poorly-worded and inapplicable "lynching" analogy, I don't see how he's being hateful toward anyone.

And beyond all of that, why aren't we discussing what he actually said rather than how he said it?

Do you think it's ALL of lies, partly LIES&lt; or is he telling the truth 100 percent.

I want to know YOUR opinion, and then we'll fashion the discussion from there.

Okay, hateful may be strong (because it was admittedly based on an assumption of his motives). Perhaps "spiteful" is more fitting?

And you know for a fact if a conservo made these remarks about someone it would be branded as "hateful" by extreme libs. I should know better than that.

Anyway, we agree to disagree on whether or not party affiliation has any relevance in this issue. In fact, Ritter likely gets WAY too much attention simply because he is/was a Republican and doesn't fit many of the party stereotypes.

That's one of my beefs in many of these threads. Political stereotypes are just as wrong and dangerous as any other.

To get back on track, I believe Ritter has his own motives and is spouting a mixture of lies and truth.

What percentage that is, I have no idea. But I am convinced he is not honest and forthright (and certainly his past is one that shows a lack of scruples) and therefore his whole diatribe becomes irrelevant to me. And that's a shame, because he COULD be on to something. But the fact is that it's hard to decipher what is real and what is bullshit.

Edited: Already worked 55 hours this week... the words are all blending together. frown

Why do you think he's lying exactly? He's not next in line to be president or anything.

OK, so what parts of what he is saying are true in your opinion?

Don't you ever just get the strong, natural gut feeling that someone is full of shit?

And, personally... no I wouldn't trust anyone who would fuck with 14 year olds (even though I admit that issue has no relevance to what he was discussing here).

It's hard to tell, really. It's just obvious to me that he has some kind of ulterior motive here and at least some of what he has been spewing is driven by that. But I do have a problem believing he's full of it entirely. I'm too rational for that type of thinking.

It's hard to tell what YOUR opinion is?!

I just want to know what parts of what he's saying are in line with what YOU believe is the truth currently. Your ability to determine how genuine he is doesn't have any bearing on that.

I feel that he's been discredited enough as to not be relevant.

First, I didn't pick up anything from Drudge. Second, I wouldn't dream of going into any sort of public position simply because I know lives are researched in depth.

And my past does not include 14-year olds.

Just to be trite, I'll cite that the old cliche that even broken clocks are right two times a day. I consider Pat Buchanan a lunatic in a lot of ways, but he makes a lot of sense on why we should never have been in the Middle East in the first place, so why discount it because of the source?

This is more about our opinions and how they fall inline with this set of ideas presented, so let's just pretend Joe Slobotnik said this all and I re-state my question.

How much of what he said do you agree/not agree with, and why do you agree or not agree with it?

Not only is this a ridiculous statement it's not even factual.

And his characterization of "Empire" is not accurate either.

And for the record once again, I opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that they didn't physically attack us under their colors.

But I oppose Ritter on the grounds that he acted as a tool of Saddam. That to me is far worse as he was working on behalf of a foreign power.

Already agreed on both of those points.

Anything you DO agree with?

Yeah. I gotta admit, I love that quote. And it's quite apt and timely.

Just to be a nit-picker, Ritter was charged with having a "sexual discussion" with a police officer posing as a sixteen year old on the internet. He was acquitted, and the records were sealed.

Just wanted to get that out there before this discussion has him raping babies or whatever.

And, as someone who has family in West Texas I personally find Ritter's classification of a "West Texas lynching" so far off base it didn't even occur to me until now. Why would he feel the need to pinpoint his insult even more geographically? What a dick.

UN Weapons Inspector...records sealed?

*snif-snif*

Not a fresh smell in that room.

Well, Republicans are great at covering up crimes...

You know, I have a new motto thanks to you guys:

"You can't spell Partisanship without Pants."

These ad hominem arguments have no meaning. Ritter might be right about Bush, or he might be wrong. Saying you think he's wrong because you don't like how he gets a boner is saying nothing at all.

This "tool of Saddam" business is different. I'd say a convicted traitor who was in a position to know makes a dubious source when it comes to telling what he knows, sure. Was this man brought up on charges of treason or something? Or is calling him a tool of Saddam just another kneejerk reaction to the U.N.?

It was a joke, Carl. I just like watching Republicans having to eat one of their own for a change.

Don't worry, there's still plenty of asshole Democrats to make fun of...

You're right! And that (along with a range of political beliefs from issue to issue) is why some of us could never fully join a particular party.

Plus, our 2 party system is also pants.

The guy is a choda... that being said, I agree with everything he said.

No, Saddam was definitely his sugar daddy. Saddam financed a film for Ritter that, in effect, said Iraq was a great place, Saddam is a great ruler, and the US is a bunch of imperialist dogs. [wild speculation]He's ticked because his money source is cut off and now he has to get a real job.[/wild speculation]

Well besides Ritter being on the Iraqi payroll (well used to be), I'm sure his credibility is A OK.

Got a cite, sorro?

Poor old George W. He's receiving flak from all sides now.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3011999.stm" target="_blank">Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone took a pop yesterday.</a>

It's worth noting that ol' Ken is a bit on the eccentric side, and prone to outbursts of diatribe. That said he's the only Mayor in Britain who had the balls to start charging motorists for entry into London in an attempt to ease (terminal) congestion and help the environment.

If people like you would let the conservos among us get away with such harmless "metaphors", then you could use this excuse. But, alas...

Anyway, I know I could tolerate a hell of a lot more political discussions if not for these silly double-standards. Drives me nuts.

Uh, Ritter IS a conservative.

On certain issues, perhaps. But certainly not here.

And, again... that's not even the point. The point is that Ritter made statements that would absolutely be LAMBASTED by people like Englebert had a conservo been saying the very same things about a liberal, or anyone else. Instead, he defends it because it placates his own point-of-view. That's the epitome of a double-standard. And you know it.

No hard feelings, though. This is obviously just a HUGE pet peeve of mine. It's just too damn bad it's so rampant in political discussions.