Comments on: Maybe they bought it off the Internet

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:46:37 +0000

“Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centrifuge cascade at this facility in Natanz. Iran claims it will have 3,000 centrifuges at this site by next spring. (IKONOS satellite image by GeoEye)”

That is the offending statement from the report. The committees concern is the future enrichment levels. Both the IAEA and the government report say that Iran has currently acheived 3.6%.

The IAEA letter also critisizes the term “covertly” when discussing the Po-210 because Po is not required to be reported.

Overall the IAEA letter makes me a lot more inclined to believe the government report.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:33:46 +0000

That was quick. The inspector, Mr. Charlier was removed, because Iran demanded it. This is off the IAEA letter. The reporter couldn’t read a 2 page letter?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:21:19 +0000

Thanks, I’ll look

By: Sean Aqui

Sean Aqui — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:44:14 +0000

Bernie: I added this to the Midtopia posting but forgot to update here. The full text of the IAEA letter is available here. The Congressional report is available here.

By: rachel

rachel — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:31:36 +0000

bernie,
North Korea didn’t test warheads; they tested missiles. They say they’re going to test nuclear devices “real soon, any day now, could be next Tuesday”, but so far, no nukes yet.

By: bernie

bernie — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:44:56 +0000

I am completely confused. If North Korea does not have an enrichment facility Then how did they build the warheads they tested? What am I missing?

The article you linked to is disapointing, there are no facts, no research, who’s telling the truth? I don’t trust either of them without some information.

“Among the allegations in Fleitz’s Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised “concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program.” The agency said the inspector has not been removed.”

Does this inspector have a name? Did the reporter talk to him?

“A suggestion that ElBaradei had an “unstated” policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran’s program was particularly “outrageous and dishonest,” according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA’s director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.”

Did too…, did not? These are the only issues with the report in the article.

Useless.

By: probligo

probligo — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:41:26 +0000

Why do I have this strong feeling of deja vue and impending doom?

Or as another blogsite put it “Groundhog Day – again”.