Scott Ritter on the Iranian Bomb

[Michael Tee]

<<The ongoing tension over Iran’s nuclear program is less derived from any real threat such a program poses (it is, in reality, one of the least significant issues facing the United States today in terms of national security concern), but rather the utility that such an artificial crisis serves in facilitating the larger objective: regime change.>>

Scott Ritter, Obama’s Alternate Universe
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_alternative_universe_20100108/

[Plane]

A clock that always says it is two O'clock will be right twice a day.

[Christians4LessGvt]

A clock that always says it is two O'clock will be right twice a day.

Does that include people arrested in police stings in which officers pose as under-aged girls?

[Religious Dick]

Sex sting in Poconos nets former chief U.N. weapons inspector

By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record Writer
January 14, 2010 12:00 AM
A former chief United Nations weapons inspector is accused of contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera.

Scott Ritter of Delmar, N.Y., who served as chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98 and who was an outspoken critic of the second Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq, is accused of contacting what turned out to be a Barrett Township police officer posing undercover as a teen girl.

Read the Affidavit of Probable Cause
WARNING: Extremely Graphic Content

The police affidavit gives the following account:

Officer Ryan Venneman was posing as 15-year-old "Emily" in an online chat room when he was contacted by someone using the name "Delmarm4fun." This person, later identified as Ritter, told "Emily" he was a 44-year-old male from Albany, N.Y.

"Emily" told Ritter she was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos, at which point Ritter asked for a picture other than the one "Emily" had posted on her account. Ritter then sent her a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate on camera.

"Emily" asked Ritter for his cell phone number, which he provided.

Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told she was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was 15 and turned off his webcam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.

Ritter told "Emily" he had been fantasizing about having sex with her, to which she replied: "Guess you turned it off ..."

Ritter then said: "You want to see it finish," reactivated his

webcam and continued masturbating and ejaculated on camera.

The online conversation occurred in February 2009, but the investigation lasted until November, when Ritter was charged, because police had to undergo the lengthy process of obtaining court orders to get Ritter's cell phone and computer information.

Ritter is awaiting his next appearance in Monroe County Common Pleas Court. He waived his right last month to a preliminary hearing and is free on $25,000 unsecured bail.

The Pocono Record's attempts to reach Ritter at his New York home and his attorney, Todd Henry, were unsuccessful.

This is not the first time Ritter has been in such trouble.

According to reports, Ritter was charged in a June 2001 Internet sex sting in New York, but that case was dismissed.

He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging in an online chatroom to meet what he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a Burger King restaurant. The girl turned out to be an undercover policewoman.

Ritter said the criminal charge was a smear campaign in response to his criticizing U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The New York Post reported Ritter had been caught in a similar case involving a 14-year-old girl in April 2001, but that he was not charged.

In 1998, Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspection team and has been the most outspoken critic of U.S. policy toward Baghdad.

Ritter first made headlines in 1997 when, as a senior UNSCOM member, he was accused by Iraq of being an American spy himself. Now a consultant, he is the author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem Once and For All."

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS/1140319

[Christians4LessGvt]

"former chief United Nations weapons inspector is accused of contacting what he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera"

Again?

Good Lord...Michael Tee's source is one sick puppy that belongs in jail!

[Michael Tee]

I guess one of you guys will have to explain to me how the guy's attraction to underage teenage girls invalidates any experience the guy had gained as a chief UN weapons inspector, soldier, etc.

This phony indignation at a supposedly "sick puppy" who "belongs in jail" is ludicrous - - a little bit of honesty would reveal that some (not all) young women can be very attractive at that age - - especially considering the European ages of consent:

<<The ages of consent for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction across Europe. Spain sets its age of consent at 13, and the rest of the countries have an age of consent between 14 and 17, except Turkey and Malta, which have the highest age limit, set at 18.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Instead of faking "shock" and "horror" at the "sickness" of Scott Ritter, who can probably thank the CIA or some other nefarious branch of the U.S. state security apparatus for setting him up, it would be refreshingly honest to hear some specific issue-addressed comments.

[BT]

Regimes that sponsor terror should be targeted for regime change.

Usually that involves either covert or overt actions.

So yes the idea that a regime seeking nuclear weaponry whilst still supporting terror should be changed.

Tip of the hat to Scott Ritter for figuring that one out.

[Michael Tee]

<<Regimes that sponsor terror should be targeted for regime change.>>

LMFAO.  If that's the case, then the U.S.A. is way overdue for some really serious regime change.

<<Usually that involves either covert or overt actions.>>

So you approve of the WTC attacks then?

<<So yes the idea that a regime seeking nuclear weaponry whilst still supporting terror should be changed.>>

Yeah right.  Do the words "double standard" mean anything at all to you?

<<Tip of the hat to Scott Ritter for figuring that one out. >>

And a big Bronx cheer to BT for not figuring it all out even now.

[BT]

LMFAO.  If that's the case, then the U.S.A. is way overdue for some really serious regime change.

We have the chance every 4 years and in the meantime we have folks ramming the institutions on a daily basis.

So we aren't overdue. We have prevailed.

So you approve of the WTC attacks then?

They didn't ask for my approval, but i understand them.

And a big Bronx cheer to BT for not figuring it all out even now. 

If we must get personal, go fuck yourself.

Yeah right.  Do the words "double standard" mean anything at all to you?

You mean like signing a Non Proliferation Agreement then proliferating?

[Michael Tee]

<<[Double standard] . . .You mean like signing a Non Proliferation Agreement then proliferating?>>

No, I meant more like getting billions in U.S. foreign aid for not even signing a non--Proliferation agreement and proliferating,   and getting death threats for signing a non-Proliferation agreement and allegedly proliferating.

<<We have the chance [for regime change] every 4 years and in the meantime we have folks ramming the institutions on a daily basis. >>

Well the Iranians have a similar chance with their elections too, and they chose to continue with Ahmadinejad.

[BT]

Well the Iranians have a similar chance with their elections too, and they chose to continue with Ahmadinejad.

That explains the millions in the streets protesting that election.

[Michael Tee]

<<That explains the millions in the streets protesting that election. >>

Uh, no, they aren't "millions" and that doesn't begin to explain it.  If you're really interested in those "millions" in the streets, I suggest you do a little reading up on the late Salvador Allende of Chile, and you'll begin to understand a little better why those folks are in the streets "protesting" and who they represent, knowingly or not.

Or just read the Washington Post.

from the Washington Post

<<The Iranian People Speak
<<By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
<<Monday, June 15, 2009

<<The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. >>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html

[BT]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html

[Michael Tee]

The photos were moving, as would be any pictures of unarmed people confronting the organized violence of the state, any state.  They could have been taken anywhere - - at Berkeley, at People's Park, at Kent State, or at Birmingham (only the Iranian riot police are too civilized to use attack dogs and fire-hoses on their own people) - - They could have been taken in the streets of Santiago, where "popular demonstrations" organized by the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Allende government and brought in the disappearances, torture and murder of the Pinochet regime, for the greater glory of imperialist Amerikkka.

But they were interesting nevertheless.  Thank you.

[Amianthus]

from the Washington Post

<<The Iranian People Speak
<<By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
<<Monday, June 15, 2009

<<The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. >>

The Iranian People Speak

(Ugly link fixed.)

From a Princeton University study of the polling data from Iran pre-election:

The Iranian election presents a harder case. Polling is sparse, professional standards of reporting polls are absent, and respondents are potentially unwilling to answer questions or hard to reach. Still, let's look at the publicly available polls.

National polls are all over the place, even if we only take data after the Ahmadinejad-Moussavi debate on June 3rd, potentially a major decision point for Iranians. One post-June 3rd poll shows Ahmadinejad +16% (47% to 31%). The other shows Moussavi +32% (23% to 54-57%). Earlier polls range from Ahmadinejad +33% to Moussavi +30%. These data are so variable that they are unusable.

Polls within Tehran may be a better source of data. This is plausible because urban areas are easier to sample. The last three Tehran surveys (before June 8th, before June 7th, and June 3rd) show Moussavi +4%, Ahmadinejad +8%, and Moussavi +17%. Before that, three surveys showed Moussavi +12%, +4%, and +2% (May 27, May 26, May 14). The averages are

Last 3 polls: Moussavi +4 +/- 7% (median +/- MAD-based SEM).
All 6 polls: Moussavi +4 +/- 4%.

The announced official result was Ahmadinejad +12% (51.6% to 39.4%), a discrepancy of 16 points. When all 6 polls are used, this discrepancy is highly significant (p=0.003).

For now, my interpretation is that the official returns in Tehran are unbelievable. However, I can think of two three alternate explanations.

(1) Ahmadinejad really mopped the floor with Moussavi in the debate. The experience in U.S. elections is that debates provide a side-by-side comparison that can shift opinion substantially (for a famous example see Carter-Reagan 1980). In the case of Iran 2009 there are only 2 or 3 post-debate polls. A comparison using just 3 polls does not quite reach statistical significance (p=0.07).

(2) Tehran polls have a systematic overall pro-Moussavi bias that prevents a direct comparison with vote counts. For example, as David Shor points out in comments, polls might have been restricted to the actual city of Tehran, which is not all of Tehran province.

(3) Last-minute minor party candidates broke in favor of Ahmadinejad. There is plenty of precedent for third-party (and in this case, fourth-party) candidates to revert to one of the major candidates. U.S. readers, think of Nader supporters in the last two elections, who underperformed the opinion polls. And then there are undecided voters, who usually break against the incumbent in the U.S. but it?s not clear what would happen here.

I should emphasize that Tehran is not representative of the entire nation. It is notably more pro-Moussavi, which can account in part for the public anger there. In fact, if the 16-point discrepancy were corrected nationwide it would still not be enough to alter the overall outcome.

Analyzing Iran 2009: Part 1, Pre-election polls