845
edits
Changes
more changes...
*"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)
==Some Changes==
I've made some changes to correct some inaccuracies in the article:
* Based on a WP report, the article describes Fleitz as "one of three authors" of the report, but the WP article actually describes him as the "principle" author - if you're going to rely on the report for the 3 authors bit, you have to accept the principle but too.
* There is no evident that the IAEA leaked its own report to the media, so I have returned this section to its previous state
*I've cut out the whole section dealing with the details of the IAEA letter to Heokstra, & Hoekstra's letter to the IAEA (below), as it clearly doesn't belong in an article on Fleitz. Perhaps someone would like to start a new article on this topic (perhaps first taking out the large slabs of highly partisan text copied verbatim from right-wing "news" (or perhaps calling it "news" is too much of a compliment) site FrontPageMagazine)
Cheers,
[[User:Mc|Mc]] 01:57, 7 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Previously from the article:
::The IAEA letter noted that:
*The report included a photo caption of the Natanz site which stated that "Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centriguge cascade". The IAEA stated that enrichment at the Natanz site was to 3.6%. The term "weapons grade" is "commonly used to refer to uranium enriched to the order of 90% or more in the isotope of uranium-235." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/document091406.pdf#search=%22%22Hoekstra%22%20IAEA%22]
* The report referred to Iran having "covertly produced" polonium-210. The IAEA stated this was "misleading" as Iran was under no obligation to report the production of polonium-210 under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/document091406.pdf#search=%22%22Hoekstra%22%20IAEA%22]
* the report claimed that Director General of the IAEA decided to "remove" a senior weapons inspector Mr Charlier "for allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program and conculding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to construct weapons." The IAEA described this asbeing "incorrect" and a "misleading assertion." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/document091406.pdf#search=%22%22Hoekstra%22%20IAEA%22]
* the report also claimed that Charlier might have been removed for "not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program." The IAEA described this as "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion." The Washington Post story stated that Charlier "had not been removed." This was incorrect as the IAEA letter notes that he was reassigned at the request of Iran. The letter stated that Iran had requested the withdrawal of the designation of Charlier as an inspector but stated that Iran had the right under NPT and IAEA treaties to take this action. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/document091406.pdf#search=%22%22Hoekstra%22%20IAEA%22]
According to reports on [[NewsMax.com]] and [[FrontPageMagazine]] websites, Michigan Republican Representative [[Peter Hoekstra]] sent a letter in reponse to the IAEA letter, noting that it "focuses keenly on several minor issues, it, and thereby the IAEA, does not take issue with the report’s major fundamental conclusions about Iran's nuclear program" that Tehran is apparently pursuing nuclear weapons and that its program has been conducted in such a way that it appears unlikely intended for peaceful energy production." Hoekstra conceded that the photo caption concerning the production of weapons-grade uranium could be read out of contect but noted that the report stated in three separate places that Iran was working toward this goal but had not yet succeeded in enriching uranium to this level. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24778] [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/28/102725.shtml?s=ic ]
Hoekstra noted that the main reason that the IAEA took issue with the report concerned a paragraph noting that the IAEA had removed an Iran inspector at the request of Iran for concluding that Iran's nuclear program was designed to produce nuclear weapons. FrontPage Magazine provided an indepth account of the issues raised by Hoekstra. It first quoted the paragraph in the Iran report that apparently offended the IAEA:
*“If Mr. Charlier was removed for not adhering to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program, the United States and the international community have a serious problem on their hands.”
* FrontPageMagazine wrote about the IAEA letter, "In his reply to these scurrilous accusations, which constitute an intrusion into U.S. domestic political affairs, Rep. Hoekstra noted that that the United States had “complained formally” about the decision to reassign Mr. Charlier as chief Iran weapons inspector."
The article quoted Hoekstra on this issue from his letter:
* “I believe it is fair to characterize that this IAEA action was undertaken quietly, and that there was an effort not to inform IAEA members,” Rep. Hoekstra wrote. “Further, I understand that you have omitted mentioning the Charlier reassignment in your reports to the IAEA Board of Governors. The Cserveny letter is apparently the first time the IAEA has publicly admitted that it reassigned Charlier at the request of Iran.”
*FrontPageMagazine summarized the Charlier story as follows: "Such blatant misrepresentation of facts comes from the IAEA, an agency the United States government depends for on-site inspections of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities." [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24778
Hoekstra also condemned the IAEA for the way it leaked its letter to the news media without giving him a chance to respond to it. Hoekstra noted that this suggested the IAEA was pursuing a political agenda. Hoekstra's letter still has not been released to the public. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24778