15
edits
Changes
→IAEA details: -- what's going on here?
==IAEA details==
I have added the original key IAEA concerns for context. These are specific and substantive issues while Hoekstra's letter, as reported by NewsMax, is general and rhetorical. Maybe there is more detail in the original letter but it is not available online that I can see). In the absence of a detailed response, Hoekstra's claims can't be taken seriously. After all, the gap between 3.6% and 90% deals a pretty substantial blow to the disingenous claim that the primary issue was over the deisgnation of Charlier as an inspector. --[[User:Bob Burton|Bob Burton]] 08:03, 3 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Bob, these are pretty extreme comments given that you admit that you don't know the whole story. You haven't seen Hoekstra's letter so you can't assess whether the Charlier issue is disingenuous. I'm attaching a more detailed article on this issue.
The removal of an IAEA inspector is a big deal. The IAEA's criticism of this was much tougher.
Hoekstra argued that the IAEA took issue with a photo caption that while it could have been read out of context, the meaning of the report is clear in that it says numerous times that Iran has not yet enriched uranium to weapons grade. This hardly justifies calling the report disingenuous.
I assume Sourcewatch wants to see that the news be reported accurately. The fact that the IAEA leaked its letter to the press but the House did not leak the Hoekstra letter is interesting. Who is trying to influence the media? Are you helping this effort? You seem to be swallowing the IAEA's line hook, line, and sinker without considering that there may be another side to the story. Why would the IAEA leak such a letter?
As a general point, it seems that this discussion has drifted substantially from an article about a private individual to a discussion about Iran. The involvement of this individual in the House Intel report is unclear. If you think it is necessary to dsicuss this report in such detail, you should make it a separate entry under "Iran" or "House Intelligence Committee." --Zeke