15
edits
Changes
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--almost fanatical. Why did it over react?
Hoekstra argued that the IAEA took issue with a photo caption , admitting 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 inadverently 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 discuss this report in such detail, you should make it a separate entry under "Iran" or "House Intelligence Committee." I also deleted the paragraph on the North Korea report. This report came out and was not attributed to Fleitz. It also doesn't say that the North Koreans already are enriching uranium. --Zeke