Defendario wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > "Mark Fox" wrote in
news:1106502015.981861.271880
> > @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >>On January 19, 2003, New York reporters broke a graphic -scandal
> >>story involving Scott Ritter, who was a U.S. Marine before he
became a
> >>U.N. weapons inspector. Ritter was accused of soliciting over
the
> >>Internet from an underage girl...
> >
> >
> >
> > many americans were saddened to see ritter paid-back bu the bush
> > administration for his honest reporting that wmds did not exist.
> >
> > but ritter isn't the only one who faced trumped up charges of the
bush
> > administration. distatorships are ugly
> >
> How true. The part that Marky Fux *didn't* post half a dozen times
is
> that the case against Ritter was dismissed w/prejudice and sealed.
>
> Not a thing that happens to legit legal cases.

The case was dismissed? Really?? Show us some proof.

>
> BTW, for spamming UseNet...

I saw about eight separate threads praising Scott Ritter and thought
that the whole story should be told.

> ... with lies about a good American

Apparently Scott Ritter is really good with 16 year old girls too!
LOL!

>...(Mr Ritter) who
> told the TRUTH concerning Shrubs war, you earned yourself a place in
my
> Hall of Shame.
>
> *PLONK*

Yet another little boy with a big mouth cries and runs away when he
finds out that there is no Santa Claus.

Good bye and don't let the screen door bang you on the backside when
you leave.

Here is the story again for those who might have missed it:

On January 19, 2003, New York reporters broke a graphic -scandal
story involving Scott Ritter, who was a U.S. Marine before he became a
U.N. weapons inspector. Ritter was accused of soliciting over the
Internet from an underage girl...

[the story was] broken by the Schenectady Daily Gazette and the New
York Daily News about how Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany
County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet sting operation.
The stories cited anonymous "law enforcement authorities." It was
reported that Ritter was arrested by Colonie (New York) Police in June
2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a ual discussion
on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was a
16-year old girl. The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined
to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in
local court in contemplation of dismissal. Albany District Attorney
Paul Clyne said he had no knowledge of the case and fired veteran
Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser for failing to inform him
of the case. The story spread from print media to cable news,
culminating in a CNN interview of Ritter by Aaron Brown.

NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany turned up a mug shot of Ritter.
The station's news director, Paul Conti, said the "16-year-old girl"
had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands,
N.Y., in order "to have her watch him have with himself."

From:	Sid9
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:44:10 -0500

Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:

These are FACTS independent of
Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
and lack of judgment of Yosemite George

Saddam was no threat to anyone.
Saddam was neutered.
Saddam was contained.
Saddam had no air force.
Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.
Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
unannounced.
Except for a little fraud in the "oil for food program" the country
was impoverished.

All we needed was a president with a modicum of good judgment and
there would have been NO war.

But..... the worst....We had Yosemite George,Jr

From:	* US *
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:54:04 -0500

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:44:10 -0500, "Sid9" wrote:

>Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance

[Mark Fox's typical asinine drivel deleted]

>These are FACTS independent of
>Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
>and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>
> Saddam was no threat to anyone.
> Saddam was neutered.
> Saddam was contained.
> Saddam had no air force.
> Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.
> Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
> unannounced.
> Except for a little fraud in the "oil for food program" the country
> was impoverished.
>
> All we needed was a president with a modicum of good judgment and
> there would have been NO war.
>
> But..... the worst....We had Yosemite George,Jr

Excellent summary. Thanks for posting this.

From:	Frank Dwyer
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:01:21 GMT

Sid9 wrote:

> Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:
>
>
> These are FACTS independent of
> Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
> and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>
> Saddam was no threat to anyone.

No one outside of his own country.

> Saddam was neutered.

Yup

> Saddam was contained.

Yup

> Saddam had no air force.

Minimal at best.

> Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.

Yup

> Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
> unannounced.

Wrong

> Except for a little fraud in the "oil for food program" the country
> was impoverished.

The people were impoverished

> All we needed was a president with a modicum of good judgment and
> there would have been NO war.

Yes there would have - just not with Iraq yet.

> But..... the worst....We had Yosemite George,Jr

He's the rootinest, tootinest, shootinest varmint in DC, and he's
a-gonna hunt down the dog-gone idgit galoots and blast 'em!
:)

From:	Osprey
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:15:01 -0500

"Frank Dwyer" wrote in message
news:5yZId.1646$b74.822@news02.roc.ny...
> Sid9 wrote:
>
>> Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:
>>
>>
>> These are FACTS independent of
>> Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
>> and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>>
>> Saddam was no threat to anyone.
>
> No one outside of his own country.

It depends I think. If he was financing terrorism, which we know he was..at
least with suicide bombers, or allowing terrorist networks to come into Iraq
and use the land to train or set up base.

>
>> Saddam was neutered.
>
> Yup
>
>> Saddam was contained.
>
> Yup
>
>> Saddam had no air force.
>
> Minimal at best.

Or what was buried under the sand.

>
>> Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.
>
> Yup
>
>> Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
>> unannounced.
>
> Wrong

Correct, remember they were booted out when Clinton was in office and for a
long time Saddam was going unchecked.

>
>> Except for a little fraud in the "oil for food program" the country
>> was impoverished.
>
> The people were impoverished

"little" fraud thing? Billions of dollars is "little fraud"?

>
>> All we needed was a president with a modicum of good judgment and
>> there would have been NO war.
>
> Yes there would have - just not with Iraq yet.
>
>> But..... the worst....We had Yosemite George,Jr
>
> He's the rootinest, tootinest, shootinest varmint in DC, and he's a-gonna
> hunt down the dog-gone idgit galoots and blast 'em!
> :)

lol

From:	Ray Fischer
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:06:43 GMT

Osprey wrote:
>"Frank Dwyer" wrote in message
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:

>>> These are FACTS independent of
>>> Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
>>> and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>>>
>>> Saddam was no threat to anyone.
>>
>> No one outside of his own country.
>
>It depends I think. If he was financing terrorism, which we know he was.

Heishman is lying again. It's what he does in order to justify the
invasion of Iraq and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent
people.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

From:	Sid9
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:43:28 -0500

Osprey wrote:
> "Frank Dwyer" wrote in message
> news:5yZId.1646$b74.822@news02.roc.ny...
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:
>>>
>>>
>>> These are FACTS independent of
>>> Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
>>> and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>>>
>>> Saddam was no threat to anyone.
>>
>> No one outside of his own country.
>
> It depends I think. If he was financing terrorism, which we know he
> was..at least with suicide bombers, or allowing terrorist networks to
> come into Iraq and use the land to train or set up base.
>
>>
>>> Saddam was neutered.
>>
>> Yup
>>
>>> Saddam was contained.
>>
>> Yup
>>
>>> Saddam had no air force.
>>
>> Minimal at best.
>
> Or what was buried under the sand.
>
>>
>>> Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.
>>
>> Yup
>>
>>> Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
>>> unannounced.
>>
>> Wrong
>
> Correct, remember they were booted out when Clinton was in office and
> for a long time Saddam was going unchecked.
>

You have a convenient incorrect memory to support your case.

Inspectors had returned.
Saddam was desperate.
Yosemite George's attack was imminent.
Saddam caved.

*Inspectors entered Iraq, unfettered.*
They could visit his palaces....in fact any place with no advanced warning
to anybody.

Then when Bush threatened to start bombing Iraq the inspectors left in one
big hurry for their personal safety from American bombs.

There was *NO* valid reason for this war

From:	james g. keegan jr.
Subject:	Re: Ritter Right About Iraq
Date:	24 Jan 2005 02:41:13 GMT

"Sid9" wrote in news:_uXId.9888$Gj.1622
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

> Mark Fox wrote an irrelevance:
>
>
> These are FACTS independent of
> Ritter that tell us about the incompetence
> and lack of judgment of Yosemite George
>
> Saddam was no threat to anyone.
> Saddam was neutered.
> Saddam was contained.
> Saddam had no air force.
> Saddam had only the remnants of air defense.
> Saddam had UN inspectors all over Iraq with freedom to go anywhere
> unannounced.
> Except for a little fraud in the "oil for food program" the country
> was impoverished.
>
> All we needed was a president with a modicum of good judgment and
> there would have been NO war.
>
> But..... the worst....We had Yosemite George,Jr

now mark fox will be killfiling you

From:	Defendario
Subject:	*Re: Ritter Right About Iraq AND* Not a pedophile**
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:54:23 -0500

Marky Fux, the common Troll & fuckwit, wrote:

> Defendario wrote:
>
>>james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark Fox" wrote in
>
> news:1106502015.981861.271880
>
>>>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On January 19, 2003, New York reporters broke a graphic -scandal
>>>>story involving Scott Ritter, who was a U.S. Marine before he
>
> became a
>
>>>>U.N. weapons inspector. Ritter was accused of soliciting over
>
> the
>
>>>>Internet from an underage girl...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>many americans were saddened to see ritter paid-back bu the bush
>>>administration for his honest reporting that wmds did not exist.
>>>
>>>but ritter isn't the only one who faced trumped up charges of the
>
> bush
>
>>>administration. distatorships are ugly
>>>
>>
>>How true. The part that Marky Fux *didn't* post half a dozen times
>
> is
>
>>that the case against Ritter was dismissed w/prejudice and sealed.
>>
>>Not a thing that happens to legit legal cases.
>
>
> The case was dismissed? Really?? Show us some proof.
>

"adjourned in contemplation of dismissal"

Basically the same thing.

>
>>BTW, for spamming UseNet...
>
>
> I saw about eight separate threads praising Scott Ritter and thought
> that the whole story should be told.
>

The man is very intelligent and praiseworthy. It takes courage to
question the Bushkult in public, as he discovered to his detriment.

>
>>... with lies about a good American
>
>
> Apparently Scott Ritter is really good with 16 year old girls too!
> LOL!
>

More slander you little punk-assed prick?

Bet you wouldn't say it to Scott Ritter's face. He's a man, unlike you.

>
>>...(Mr Ritter) who
>>told the TRUTH concerning Shrubs war, you earned yourself a place in
>
> my
>
>>Hall of Shame.
>>
>>*PLONK*
>
>
> Yet another little boy with a big mouth cries and runs away when he
> finds out that there is no Santa Claus.
>

The little boy with a big mouth would be you Marky.

Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely
"adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say
nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so
transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style
operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that
the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket.
Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to
protect whomever tried to set him up?

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1564760_comment.php

I didn't totally plonk you, Marky. I just mark your replies as read.
Want to talk more smack, you dickweed?

Now go cry to your Momma, or your ISP, you bitch.
;D