re: Maybe I'm a cynic
So me get this right... Ritter gets framed in April 2001 (so pre-invasion) in a sting but no charges are brought. In June 2001, he gets framed in another sting, where no doubt he wasn't actually waiting for the 16 year old he was alleged to have arranged to meet - although there are charges, they are dropped and the record sealed on the proviso he doesn't get caught doing anything for a period of time.
In 2003, America invades Iraq and Ritter is a vocal critic.
In 2009, he gets 'framed' for a similar thing for a third time.
I wouldn't say that a mind that thinks this is just a frame-up is cynical, just confused. If Ritter, risked a huge business loss to... Bush, Cheney & Co", (BTW, what were Bush's business links to Iraq), wouldn' t it have made more sense to frame him and discredit him during Bush's administration, rather than after?
Also, isn't it a bit risky using the same kind of frame-up three different times on the same person?