Ritter Arrested

December looks like a bad month in which to be named William Ritter. Governor Bill Ritter’s decision not to seek re-election has caused quite a buzz. Now, William Scott Ritter is making headlines as well. He has been arrested in what USA Today is calling an “online child-sex sting.” USA Today reports that this is the third time Ritter has been accused of trying to solicit underage girls, but Ritter previously claimed that the accusations were a result of his criticism of Bush’s handling of Iraq. That excuse may not work so well this time. But whether Ritter is innocent or guilty, the story is astonishing. Here is why:

In 2002, Ritter told Time Magazine that the FBI was harassing him. Indeed, he said the following:

I've been called a spy of Israel since 1996, and since I made my documentary film in 2000 the FBI has investigated me as an agent of Iraq. The FBI has also opened up an investigation into my wife calling her a KGB spy. So there is this form of harassment taking place.

If Ritter is guilty, it means one of two things. One is that he solicited sex from minors while knowing that the FBI was investigating him. The other is that he solicited sex from minors, believing that the FBI had no interest in him. This would make his statements to Time a little bit suspect – unless, of course, he assumed that under a new administration, the FBI would just stop investigating those that previous administrations believed were spies. But it is hard to imagine that a UN weapons inspector could be so naive.

If Ritter is innocent, the story is equally interesting. It would seem to lend evidence to the idea that someone actually is trying to set Ritter up. This would be a political scandal equivalent to Plamegate. Because the UN’s record with child-sex is not pretty, because this is the third time Ritter has been accused of such conduct, and because I am admittedly politically biased, I am inclined to believe he is guilty. It would be nice if he were not.

Comments

[wendi]

What a moron! So could we beleive anything this pervert said?
Wendi

[Bob Wilcock]

The paedophile attacks on Scott Ritter bear all the hallmarks of a U.S.government exacting retribution for his public denunciation of the U.S. attack on Iraq. The resulting massive loss of life in Iraq is of little concern when the requirements of Israel and U.S. oil are taken into consideration.
Ritter is just another in a long line to be destroyed.

[Bud]

Unfortunately this is not a plot, this is a man who has a thing for girls younger than his daughters. This is the THIRD time this guy has been busted soliciting underage girls online. He was let off the last 2 times, these types always offend repeatedly.

He should be locked up, as any other individual committing these crimes would be. Using his status as an excuse is a cop-out.

[Mick Russom]

Ritter was arrested in April 2001 and again in June 2001 in connection with police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature. The first incident did not lead to any charges. He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child" after the second, but charges were dropped and the record was sealed on condition that he avoid further trouble for a period of time. News of the arrests became public after sealed court records were provided anonymously to the press. Ritter claimed that the timing of the leak was a politically motivated effort to distract attention from his statements about Iraq.

Nice job. Take our firearms away, tax the people to death, rob our 401ks and force the citizens to buy treasuries, bail out banks and nationalize industry, and employ a Cloward Piven strategy to purposely destroy the republic, but dont arrest kiddie diddlers.

Maybe the curling iron baby rapist that Coakley loved so much should be paroled early too?

[KB]

Great post Miranda! I noticed the Ritter story, but I didn't think of amusing if obviously meaningless coincidence of names. I am following this one to the Ritter end. Pause for groans.

I applaud all the commenters for rounding out this story. To wendi I would note that Scott Ritter's sexual indiscretions, to use a polite term, do not in any way discredit his positions on Iraq. To say so is to commit an ad hominem. Even perverts can be right about politics.

To Bob Wilcock, I would point out that the opposite is equally true: just because someone was out to get him doesn't mean he isn't a sexual predator.

Mick's comment reinforces my point.

[Miranda]

Thank you all for your comments!

Wendi: If Ritter is guilty, then I agree with your observation. If Bob is right, then perhaps not.

Bob: You note that this bears all of the hallmarks of a government setup. Are there other cases of government setups that this is similar to?

Bud: Supposing Ritter is guilty, I agree with you and I do think he looks pretty
at this point.

Mick: Thank you for the additional details. I was not aware of the sealed record deal.

Dr. Blanchard:

While I agree that being guilty of one crime does not make a person guilty of all others, there is something to what Wendi says.

First, because if Ritter is guilty, he has not been very honest. When news of his initial misconduct broke, he did not admit any wrongdoing. Instead, he presented himself as the victim, declaring that the Bush administration was out to get him. Of course, it is possible to be dishonest about one thing and perfectly honest about another, but I do think that dishonesty undermines credibility.

Furthermore, I think that everything we do affects our character. If I lie, cheat and steal, I might still be able to be a good babysitter, but it would be hard to blame a mother who hired someone of a stronger character to look after her kids.

[tiraniyaya son]

The whole thing could be easily set up by a single tech savvy person, no need for government involvement.

The affidavit says that Ritter started the conversation with the girl and then for some reason showed his face on camera. The video apparently was not recorded and the officer had to recognize Ritter from the photos he saw later. It is also not clear why he gave his full name and location. Is it so that he would not be confused with other Scott or Bill Ritters? Scott Ritter seem to act very fullish for an intelligence agent, that had been previously caught in a very similar sting. Someone seems to have created a very easy case for the local police office that had only few such cases, one of which happens to be Scott Ritter. In conspirators' defense, they did not try to totally destroy Ritter, even though they could. He may not get any time at all. Yet, his reputation is badly damaged already. The smear campaign could have failed, and then no one would have heard about it. But it has succeeded and it is all over the news.

But why bother? The Iraq war is behind. This time it could be about Iran. Ritter is the only voice in the Western world arguing that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons. The talk from the previous smear campaign seems to have faded away as he did manage to get on to cable news couple times, but he was put down again. It does seem like a cycle and no one will listen to him again. The only thing missing is a war on Iran...