Talk:Scott Ritter/Archive 1

message: 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
:I agree. The opening paragraph doesn't even mention his noted criticism of the Bush administration or his exposure of the false case made for war. Instead it features claims of his alleged sexual misconduct which have never verified in a court of law and certainly does not mention the possibility of these being completely false charges brought against him in an attempt to silence his outspoken criticism. --Wm 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also in favor of a repair job for this article. --JWSchmidt 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any NPOV article has to address Ritter's sudden change in his view of Saddam Hussein.  While Ritter was a weapons inspector, he was the most outspoken critic of Saddam possible.  Perhaps you can think of better wording, but the topic itself cannot be avoided.  Also, the criminal charges were not dropped.  Rather, Ritter pled guilty to a misdemeanor rather than go to court on the felony.  The Deputy DA was fired for disposing of the case without the DA's input, a clear indication that the DA was unhappy Ritter was treated so leniently. RonCram 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ritter's sudden change in his view of Saddam Hussein" <-- It is possible to be both a critic of Saddam Hussein and against the idea that the United States should abandon UN-mediated inspections and invade Iraq. --JWSchmidt 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not seem to realize that Ritter thought the US should have invaded long before we did.  Ritter was constantly complaining that the UN Security Council would not back up their resolutions and the Clinton Administration was afraid to act without the UN.  By the time Bush decides to invade, Ritter had changed his view about Hussein's capabilities and tendencies.  Ritter became a proponent of the position that Saddam was basically powerless.  This was a big change from his earlier views when he said Saddam could have WMD within months.  You cannot rewrite history.  Ritter is who he is. RonCram 04:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article does not mention that the reason Ritter ran into difficulties in UNSCOM was that he was suspected of spying for Israel. Also, the National Review claim that his legal trouble in Albany might have been connected to his sudden 180-degree switch of views on whether Iraq had been disarmed and was a threat would seem to be dismissed by the fact that he had already made the shift by 2000. David | Talk 09:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious NPOV problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DN!: Ritter clarifies planning to bomb Iran 

message: Removed from the article:
: In June 2001 Ritter was arrested in Albany, New York and charged with "attempted endangerment of a child" for trying to meet up with a 16 year old girl he met online. The charges were later dropped, the records sealed, and the prosecutor Assistant DA Cynthia Preiser was reportedly fired . However, the matter frequently reappears in the US media, which Ritter has called "part of an attempt to silence him" over his opposition to Bush .
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)
replies: text: I don't understand your objection. This paragraph is supported by numerous news reports in the US media, including the two references. Why can it not be included? Seabhcán 08:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: csloat, I think "blackmail" is probably as good a word as any.  Sources say the record was unsealed when federal officials looked into possible federal prosecution.  The Asst' DA was fired, not for prosecuting the case but, for dismissing it.  The discussion above makes readers think the arrest was unwarranted, a view which is not supported by any news accounts. RonCram 08:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of the charge of "blackmail" being supported by any news accounts either.--csloat 09:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not use the term but it is well-sourced. I invite you to read the link. RonCram 09:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "news accounts."  The link is to a National Review opinion piece.  And it doesn't make much sense anyway; 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.  It makes even less sense that the blackmailing would continue (after all, Ritter has not changed his tune) after the person supposedly blackmailing him is in prison and his regime has been overthrown.  The article is pretty funny; the author's comment that for anti-war folks child molesting is a "lifestyle choice" gives you a sense of this guy's style of argument.  But the article doesn't even suggest any evidence that Ritter was "turned" by Saddam - it's sheer conjecture, and it is notable that no mainstream news accounts are even reporting such conjecture.  Your statement in the article that "many people believe" this conjecture is reality is simply not at all backed up by the article, which presents only one person's speculation.  --csloat 10:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to your statement, Ritter's problem with young girls was not known prior to the arrest.  And Ritter's change in POV was stark prompting many people to talk about it.  I had several conversations with different people myself about why he changed his mind after being  most outspoken about the danger Saddam posed.  After those conversations, which I believe were repeated across the country, I saw it discussed on TV panels as well.  And the possibility someone had "gotten to" Ritter was discussed.  The only other possibility discussed on the TV panel that made any sense at all could be called a Ritter "personality defect."  As long as he was involved in weapons inspection, he thought it was important and wanted others to view it as important.  Once he was no longer involved, he wanted others to think he had completed his job and to believe Saddam was no longer a threat.  That theory was not very satisfying either because Ritter had resigned because the Security Council was not backing up the weapons inspectors and he felt there was more work to do.  Still, I probably would have gone with that as the reason if the arrest was not announced later on.  The other piece of the puzzle is the money that came from Saddam through Shakir al Khafaji. It looks like Saddam used a carrot and a stick approach.  Too bad it worked. RonCram 13:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say Ritter's problems were known before the arrest.  I said that speculation about Ritter's being blackmailed is sheer conjecture, and the statement that "many people believe" the blackmail theory is not backed up by the article.  The fact that you and your friends shared the speculation is not in the article and certainly doesn't belong on wikipedia - I think it qualifies as "original research."  I don't know what TV Panels you are talking about but if you have references it would be a good idea to use them.  I'm not out to defend Ritter, but I don't think your theories about carrots and sticks are backed up by any published accounts linked on the article here, and I don't think they are encyclopedic.  Your conversations with different people and your assumption that others had similar conversations are just not substantial evidence for an article like this.  I don't know enough about Ritter to have a strong opinion on this myself, but just reading what's in the wikipedia article, it appears to be much more a smear campaign against Ritter than it does an encyclopedic account of anything that happened.--csloat 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: LOL... I'll hire Scott McClellan as soon as you show me where I argued Scott Ritter's problems were known before his arrest.  His arrest was in 2001; I was talking about 2003.--csloat 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: LOL, I'll take being wrong; I called Scott and I can't afford his fees :)  You're right about the dates, but my point still holds, since if he was blackmailed in 2000 it's not clear what was hanging over his head after 2001, and certainly by 2005, with his supposed blackmailers out of power, the whole theory is difficult to swallow (Ritter has not, of course, changed his tune).  But whatever - certainly anything's possible, but not every possible speculation deserves note in an encyclopedia.  I'm not sure how these things "balance each other out" -- it appears to me that the fact of his arrest (and the unconfirmed information about what's in the sealed records) seems to be being used to discredit the information he has been offering as an inspector.  The blackmail theory is an interesting conspiracy theory but until there is some actual evidence of it, it's not clear to me that it belongs here at all.  If it is going to be here we should be precise about who is actually putting forward the theory.--csloat 00:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think we're in agreement on this -- speculation doesn't belong here.  As for his defense against the charges being weak -- well, what would you expect?  If he's into 16-yr old girls like that, he's got problems that are serious and no doubt embarrassing, especially if he was caught red-handed soliciting them.  Of course, the records are sealed, so we don't know what happened, and the fact that a decision was made not to prosecute suggests that the case was weak at best.  What I find suspicious in all of this is the attempt to use his possible predilection for exploiting teenagers to discredit his opinions on unrelated matters (matters for which the available evidence backs up his position).  I haven't researched this but I suspect that Ritter has an explanation for his change in position that is stronger than his explanation for luring teenagers on the internet.  Either way, though, speculation about blackmail really doesn't belong here and it's odd to make it seem like the sole possibility for the change in position.  The claim fails occam's razor pretty miserably.--csloat 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealed Child Endangerment Charges 

message: "The sudden change in Ritter's point of view"<BR>
Can someone explain to me exactly what this "sudden change" was? --JWSchmidt 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sudden change 

message: 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.
:The reference to "counselling" seems very weak. I am extremely skeptical of it. If you want to keep it in you will have to make it clear that Ritter says that all charges were dismissed. Need a better reference to support these claims. --Wm 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the court-ordered sex offender counselling is already cited.  All you have to do is read the article.RonCram 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some people may, some people claim anything. As Ritter himself does not deny being arrested you cannot reasonably claim that it is "disputed". --Wm 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can reasonably say it has been disputed because it was disputed on these pages before you got here.  Since it is not disputed now, and is only a few words long, it shall remain.RonCram 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads very badly. The statement "Ritter was arrested" is sufficient. There are no references that assert that we was not arrested. It is not disputed by any reasonable person. --Wm 06:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritter's legal problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: The idea that Ritter "changed his view" is put forward to discredit him. It is pushing an agenda. So what if he changed his view? You could say that he developed his view, it is no big deal. The way that you claim that he changed his view is colored with an agenda that trys to discredit Ritter. I think we should wipe the article clean and start it again incrementely adding details. It is a real mess. You talk about narrative but it is all over the place and impossible to read. --Wm 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact Ritter changed his view would have to be discussed even if Ritter had not gotten arrested.  People were wondering why he changed his view prior to his arrest.  Some people have tied the two together and they have a valid point.  Encyclopedia readers want a synopsis of the man, what he believes in, what he accomplished, etc.  People also want to know who his critics are and what they said about him. You cannot censor the information and only tell the good. You cannot find a single article in Wikipedia about a person that does not have some space devoted to the man's mistakes or his detractors.  Ritter is not a saint.  Sometimes you just have to accept things the way they are. RonCram 06:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that various views should be represented but I do not accept that this article comes anywhere near any sort of reasonable representation of the facts. In addition it is a total mess in terms of organisation and structure. --Wm 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the elephant designed by a committee, regarding the organization and structure.  I have to agree with you that it could be cleaned up.  But it is difficult when editors come in with differing POVs. I am somewhat surprised to see you do not think the article is a reasonable presentation of the facts.  Are you looking to add facts?  Or to remove them? RonCram 06:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to find them. Instead they are buried in a pile of obsfucation, rumour and innuendo. The basic facts should jump out of the page: 1) He was a weapons inspector 2) After time, he concluded that significant weapons remained (this does not mean he thought they never existed) 3) He reported his find to the CIA 4) The CIA disregarded his reports but they were later vindicated by extensive post invasion investigation 5) He resigned in protest 6) He has some other views about the sdminstration (here report the views) 7) He was arrested but the charges were dismissed (as regard the "counselling" I am *very* skeptical that this is not misinformation but am willing to wait to look at it further) --Wm 06:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Headings' about Ritter's changing views 

message: 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)
replies: text: I beleive that you are wrong. I believe that he reported the situation regarding weapons to the CIA prior to resiging, and they rejected the report. --Wm 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the point is disputed, therefore it is important not to present the "change of viewpoint" as some sort of absolute truth. It is subject to all sorts of interpretations. --Wm 06:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not reasonably disputed.  We have Ritter's comments in the article just days after he resigned as a weapons inspector and he is militant in his belief that Saddam could reconstitute his WMD in months.  Sometime between that date and 2000, Ritter changed his viewpoint. RonCram 07:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that after 2000 Ritter no longer thought that Saddam could reconstitute WMD in months? --JWSchmidt 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritter's Viewpoint on Iraq Changed 

message: 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)
replies: text: The source was readily found on the Shakir al Khafaji page.RonCram 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, got that. Thanks. --Wm 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakir al Khafaji 

message: 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.
:The United States for nearly three years intermittently monitored the coded radio communications of President Saddam Hussein's innermost security forces using equipment secretly installed in Iraq by U.N. weapons inspectors, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.
:In 1996 and 1997, the Iraqi communications were captured by off-the-shelf commercial equipment carried by inspectors from the organization known as UNSCOM, then hand-delivered to analysis centers in Britain, Israel and the United States for interpretation, officials said.
...
:The idea of taking scanners into Iraq originated with Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine officer who was working as an UNSCOM inspector in 1995. On a trip to Israel, Ritter proposed that Israeli intelligence provide inspectors with commercial all-frequency scanners and recording devices that they could carry with them.
...
:In March 1998, for reasons that are in dispute, the United States took over the operation and arranged for the installation of the more sophisticated, stationary equipment. The equipment was automated and could have been moved as UNSCOM inspectors left the country.
:Ritter has accused the United States of putting pressure on Britain and Israel to pull out in an effort to gain full control of the intelligence produced. U.S. officials said Ekeus and his successor, Richard Butler, were concerned that inspectors' lives would be endangered if the Iraqis discovered the portable equipment they were carrying.
...
:Ritter was cut out because of questions arising from his marriage to a Russian and because of Washington's fears that a Justice Department investigation into allegations that Ritter had improperly given classified information to Israel would provide anti-UNSCOM propaganda fodder for Saddam Hussein.
:In August, shortly after Iraq expelled the arms inspectors, Ritter resigned and made the explosive accusation that the United States had undercut UNSCOM by cutting off the flow of crucial intelligence data. U.S. officials say they did not cut off UNSCOM, only Ritter personally.
David | Talk 16:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott Ritter as an Israeli spy

message: "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)
replies: text: Agreed. This edit is far from satisfactory. I am goint to try and slow down and get some books in to help fill out the picture. --Wm 22:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  prohibited weapons prior to 1998 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cited criticism belongs in the body. The intro cannot contain summarized controversial conclusions. Scott Ritter has been in the mainstream media three times in his life: once during his military career, again as a UN inspector, and now as an opponent to current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. In the all three instances, Ritter has been an outspoken critic of those who failed to rigidly adhere to consistency, facts and agreements. You can accuse him of seeing the world only in terms of black and white, but he has never been convicted of a crime involving teenage girls. --Peter McConaughey 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Some interesting questions can be asked about this: A lot of people are chasing teenage girls through the internet, why don't we hear about all of them on CNN? This happened in june 2001, why did the story break in january 2003? It seems as chasing teenage girls won't get you airtime on CNN, being a critic of the regime won't get you airtime on CNN, but if you're a critic of the regime your teen-chasing will get you airtime on CNN even if it's 18 months retrospect. Sure, his brush with the police belongs in the article, but my bet is that you wouldn't have known if he wasn't a dissenter. Geir Gundersen 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is not the place to air Mr. Davis's preferences or WP:OR -- Jibal 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what that means.  I do understand what "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" means.  Hilighting such things as "adherence to consistency, facts, and agreements" is vague and silly; it makes him sound like a logician.  Also, he was well known as a UN weapons inspector long before he was openly critical of US policy towards Iraq.--csloat 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read his book Iraq Confidential, I think I can shed some light on this. The sanctions against Iraq was supposed to be lifted as soon as Iraq had been disarmed according to the security council resolution, but the US stated officially that sanctions would last until Saddam Hussein was removed. (This would be the inconsistency and agreement part of it). Scott Ritter and the rest of UNSCOM documented that Iraq was disarmed, but the US insisted that they search for more hidden SCUDs and the like. The US would not be convinced of the disarmament, becasuse the didn't want the sanctions to be lifted. Therefore, the US had to nurture doubt about the completeness of the inspections, while doing everything they could to ensure that complete and effective inspections didn't happen. (That would be the fact part of it). At the same time the US plotted overthrow and used every opportunity to gather intelligence about Iraq through the UNSCOM, while not even sharing this intelligence with the UNSCOM. Geir Gundersen 10:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: What you question and what you read into other people's comments is completely and utterly devoid of any relevance. And for the record, the fact that you falsify statements by a DA makes YOU lose any credibility. --OliverH 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that I did not defend Ritter's attempt at anything. You just take a lot of leeway reading into what people are saying what you'd like them to say. The DA explicitly refused to confirm a link between Ritter and the firing. It might very well be that there was one, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to speculate on it. Much like it is not up to you to claim I do things that have no basis whatsoever in what I have said. If you can't stick to what's referencable and demonstrable, then this is not for you. Your credibility is very much in question since you now demonstrate a serious problem with truthfulness and a reckless readiness to fabricate. --OliverH 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your "creditibility" is INDEED in question because YOUR biographical details are the entire basis of your claim to authority.  Your claim of proximity to the investigation is what you're basing your authority to contribute to Ritter's biographical details.  This is the internet, friend.  I can claim that I was on the UNSCOM team, or that I was Ritter's closet gay lover, and I can probably whip up some pretty convincing "evidence" with photoshop and plop it on a random server in about 30 minutes, but that doesn't make it true.  Your claim that you have intimate knowledge of this situation doesn't give you any more authority than anyone else (especially since your "media" experience never taught you how to spell "credibility,") and your STATED AGENDA ("I'd rather this pervert keep his mouth shut and move out of my region") has shot your "creditibility" to hell.  Please recognize your bias and recuse yourself from this entry.  209.137.225.29 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sections 

message: 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)
:Chill out.  This really isn't the place for a soapbox about this.  You can start an anti-ritter blog if you feel the need.  Read over WP:BLP before making further changes to the page.  Stick to verifiable information about what Ritter is generally in the news for.  The fact that you watched him get arrested or whatever is not relevant to any of this.--csloat 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be wise to delete your personal attacks above Mr. Jango.  Calling someone a child molester because they asked you to read the rules on Wikipedia is a personal attack of the worst possible sort.  Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPA.  And don't ever call me a child molester again.  Thanks.--csloat 16:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, so I'm not a child molester myself, just a desperate hallucinating defender of child molesters?  One with "spunk" no less.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Now, will you please review WP:BLP and WP:NPA?  Thanks.--csloat 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely off topic. But Mark Foley (R-FL) chairman of the House Caucus Exploited Children resigned from Congress today for sexually harassing a 16 year old male page via email. I wonder, in Jango's apt phrase, does Foley "diminish the moral integrity of the Republican movement"? At any rate, Sloat is completely correct on this one, strict adherence to WP:BLP is mandatory upon penalty of bannination. Otherwise all your Wikipedia are belong to lawyers.  Derex 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "I wrote the original post" and "not there to begin with" are irrelevant -- See WP:OWNERSHIP -- Jibal 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And I've reverted your unsourced allegations of a smear campaign against Ritter. Not only do you need to absorb WP:NPOV, you also need to examine the policy on dead links (do NOT merely remove them). Andyvphil 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will answer your questions after your last of this batch of posts, below. Andyvphil (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair biography of Scott Ritter