The Blogosphere is abuzz at the revelation that Scott Ritter was once arrested on a charge amounting to attempted pedophilia. Many have suggested that his sudden about-face on the dangers of Iraq can be explained by Iraqi blackmail. Here is what I wrote about Ritter in Sgt. Stryker's comment section on September 7th:
His transformation has been so complete that I've long wondered whether he's being blackmailed as well as bribed. Compromising photos, threats to his loved ones, it hardly matters which -- maybe they have both.
Advantage: Dr. Weevil!
(Not that photos would be quite the thing in an internet pedophile sting, but why sweat the details if the overall hypothesis is correct?)
Posted by Dr. Weevil at January 21, 2003 06:51 AMIf true, what are Ritter's options now?
Stick to his guns and ride the ship down or change tack (again) and utterly destroy what little credibility he had left.
He has book sales to try and beat up after all.
Posted by: bargarz on January 21, 2003 10:16 AMOr stick his gun where it will do the most good and make an honorable exit.........
Posted by: Rick Tengdin on January 21, 2003 03:44 PM"why sweat the details if the overall hypothesis is correct?"
Now, now, Doc. Your social sciences background is showing. :-)
Kudos on the call, though --- methinks you may have been onto something...
-NZB
Posted by: N.Z. Bear on January 21, 2003 06:40 PMI've applied Occam's Razor and come to the conclusion that, blackmail or no blackmail, he's just a creep.
Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein on January 21, 2003 09:05 PMA thought: if Ritter was indeed blackmailed and he's found guilty of being an Internet pedophile, which is better for him? To claim that the pedophile charges are completely fabricated and that he still just lurrrves Saddam, or to come forward and admit to being a pedophile and say that, furthermore, he's been lying about Saddam to protect his family from the news? The latter scenario has a real TV movie of the week feel, but the former is something the left-wing kiddies will eat up. Anything's possible at this point, methinks.
Posted by: Matthew on January 22, 2003 05:38 AMI suppose somebody has to say it:
He isn't convicted of anything, it could be mostly just rumors.
In the interest of fairness, it should be said, shouldn't it?
Posted by: Dean Esmay on January 22, 2003 08:11 AMWith a released mug shot of him and his lawyer admitting that its true?
Yeah. some rumors ; )
Posted by: Nick M. on January 22, 2003 10:10 AM