developer, editor
60,576
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
exp on reinstatement
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)
==Zeke's reposne==
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.
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
==Response==
I'll have a look at the other additions a little later but a couple of preliminary points.
*"The fact that the IAEA leaked its letter to the press but the House did not leak the Hoekstra letter is interesting."
:How do you know that it was the IAEA that leaked the letter? Sure it could have been, but it could have been others too. In the absence or hard evidence, it is not a "fact".
*"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."
:I have re-instated it. The Washington Post reference was to a ''draft'' report - therefore the content of the ''final'' report doesn't mean it cam simply be deleted. Is the final report available online? --[[User:Bob Burton|Bob Burton]] 16:03, 5 Oct 2006 (EDT)
