Thanks for running this latest piece from me, The Contrarian. As I explain in the new episode and at https://theystandcorrected.substack.com/, if there's anytime the media should be especially careful about providing fact checked information and context, it's a time like this, when emotions and fears are so high. But so much of the legacy media rushes into talking heads and frantic claims, leaving people unaware of crucial points.
I'm certainly learning that I don't know what I don't know. Thank you for the depth of the clarifications rather than just saying a statement is true/false. And for stating where there still isn't clarity on some things, you'll get back to it. The mainstream news is so dang noisy and exhausting.
There was a great conversation June 19 between Jen and Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Sec State who was involved with negotiations of Iran Agreement. Judging this article by what I learned in that conversation, this article seems to be guilty of a little (or a lot) of fudging or lack of clarity. For example, the article mentions that uranium enrichment jumped from 3.67% in 2015 to 60% now and seems to blame the IAEA and the Agreement for that jump. Leaving the impression that the Agreement was seriously flawed. But the article fails to mention that the more likely explanation for the increase iin uranium s the shredding of the Agreement in 2019. Not quite up to the author's usual standards.
Hi! As I discussed in the episode and in here, there is no civilian purpose for 60% enrichment. That's the key point. As for what you're talking about, that is a can of worms I could go into in the future and maybe will. But it's become a strange excuse people are trying to use, saying that walking away from further talks somehow explains the increase to 60%. The UN, the United States, and other parties have made clear at every stage for decades that they would not let Iran pursue a nuclear weapons program. And with 60% enrichment, that is what Iran is doing. So events in 2019 did not lead to 60%; Iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons despite all those demands led to 60%. But thanks for the idea because I might go into this 2019 angle in the next episode! Very much appreciated.
Yup, he definitely represents the boy who cried wolf. He has lied about so many things so many times that no one has reason to trust the accuracy of what he says. And, as I often discuss on They Stand Corrected, anyone can say something true or false. So the media should be fact checking!
Thanks for running this latest piece from me, The Contrarian. As I explain in the new episode and at https://theystandcorrected.substack.com/, if there's anytime the media should be especially careful about providing fact checked information and context, it's a time like this, when emotions and fears are so high. But so much of the legacy media rushes into talking heads and frantic claims, leaving people unaware of crucial points.
I'm certainly learning that I don't know what I don't know. Thank you for the depth of the clarifications rather than just saying a statement is true/false. And for stating where there still isn't clarity on some things, you'll get back to it. The mainstream news is so dang noisy and exhausting.
Yes it is! And thanks.
There was a great conversation June 19 between Jen and Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Sec State who was involved with negotiations of Iran Agreement. Judging this article by what I learned in that conversation, this article seems to be guilty of a little (or a lot) of fudging or lack of clarity. For example, the article mentions that uranium enrichment jumped from 3.67% in 2015 to 60% now and seems to blame the IAEA and the Agreement for that jump. Leaving the impression that the Agreement was seriously flawed. But the article fails to mention that the more likely explanation for the increase iin uranium s the shredding of the Agreement in 2019. Not quite up to the author's usual standards.
Hi! As I discussed in the episode and in here, there is no civilian purpose for 60% enrichment. That's the key point. As for what you're talking about, that is a can of worms I could go into in the future and maybe will. But it's become a strange excuse people are trying to use, saying that walking away from further talks somehow explains the increase to 60%. The UN, the United States, and other parties have made clear at every stage for decades that they would not let Iran pursue a nuclear weapons program. And with 60% enrichment, that is what Iran is doing. So events in 2019 did not lead to 60%; Iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons despite all those demands led to 60%. But thanks for the idea because I might go into this 2019 angle in the next episode! Very much appreciated.
“ They don’t trust this president.”
How can you trust Someone who lies every time they speak?
Yup, he definitely represents the boy who cried wolf. He has lied about so many things so many times that no one has reason to trust the accuracy of what he says. And, as I often discuss on They Stand Corrected, anyone can say something true or false. So the media should be fact checking!