Musharraf and Bush—A Symbiotic Thing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html

Washington Post
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A10

Few Factual Errors, but Truth Got Stretched at Times
By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus

..... In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: ``Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.`` He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan.

But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. Yesterday, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan. .....

---

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409300188sep30,1,3209937.story

Chicago Tribune
September 30, 2004

EDITORIAL
Squeezing a nuclear outlaw

The hunt for Osama bin Laden was Topic 1 last week when Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf met with President Bush at the White House. The two leaders discussed other things, including Musharraf`s efforts to retain his post as chief of the army. But apparently one thing that failed to rank high on the agenda was the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons.

To be specific, Bush reportedly didn`t even try to persuade Musharraf to allow U.S. or International Atomic Energy Agency officials a crack at interviewing Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan`s nuclear program and one of the world`s most brazen nuclear profiteers.

Earlier this year, Khan`s underground nuclear bazaar--dubbed the ``nuclear Wal-Mart`` by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei--was uncloaked, solving the mystery of how North Korea, Iran and Libya acquired so much nuclear technology so fast. The answer: Khan`s network sold it to them.

Khan, revered in his homeland as the father of the Pakistan bomb, confessed and was instantly pardoned by Musharraf. The Pakistan president apparently feared that his grip on power could be undermined by a long investigation and trial of a national hero. Musharraf insisted that Khan acted without government knowledge, a claim that is difficult if not impossible to believe.

At the time of Khan`s confession, ElBaradei raised alarms, saying Khan was ``the tip of an iceberg`` in an illicit nuclear supply network with connections in many countries. ``We need to know who supplied what, when, to whom,`` ElBaradei said.

Some eight months later, though, no one has those answers because Pakistan has refused to make Khan available to outside investigators, either from the U.S. or the IAEA. The United States, fearing that more pressure could destabilize a crucial ally in the war on terror, hasn`t pressed the case.

That is a colossal mistake that could have devastating repercussions. Some American intelligence officials reportedly suspect that Pakistan is withholding information that may be embarrassing or that it is no longer pushing Khan to spill all his secrets. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Musharraf asserted that the United States had never asked to question Khan. If that`s true, the reason is transparent: They knew the request would be rejected. Musharraf said as much. If American officials had asked, he said, ``we wouldn`t let them,`` because ``that would show a lack of trust in ourselves. I mean, we must trust our own agencies.``

But how much trust can the U.S. and the rest of the world have in a regime that so quickly pardons a nuclear outlaw? How much trust can there be for a regime that denies any of its officials--even in its most powerful institution, the army--knew anything about Khan`s dealings?

The world may never know exactly who bought from Khan`s network. And that is intolerable.

Musharraf said he was certain that Khan`s network had been shut down. But Musharraf also admitted that he could not be sure that Pakistani investigators had unearthed all the customers and transactions of the network stretching back probably over a decade or more. David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector, says Pakistan may not push Khan too hard because that could expose the illicit networks that the country still uses to buy nuclear technology.

Iran is threatening to go nuclear. North Korea has an active nuclear weapons program. Both were fed by Khan`s network. Either of those countries could potentially become a source of nuclear materials or weapons for Al Qaeda, which has declared its intent to acquire and use nuclear weapons. And others may be harboring nuclear ambitions. In July, the Associated Press reported Syria and Saudi Arabia were being investigated as possible Khan network clients.

If the world is to avert more nasty surprises, the Khan network must be fully exposed and completely unraveled.

Bush can`t let Musharraf off the hook. International authorities need to know everything Khan knows. Without direct access to Khan, the world can have little confidence that his entire network is being rolled up, that black marketers across the world are being arrested and brought to justice. In many ways, that`s as crucial to the war on terror as finding bin Laden.

---

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

arjun_m,

``WHAT about the minority opinion?``

*Sigh*...I`ll spell it out again...from the top...if, and this is not for certain, if this election comes down to swing voters, then Bush has a case to make to a good number of them, among other things for his policies in Iraq. They are not insignficant as far as we can tell. Come election day, we may find out that bushiepoo gets 80%, or even 50%, of the vote and then you can gloat till the cows come home. k? Till then, there are a heckuvalot of people doin their best Ricky Ricardo: ``Bushy....`Splain!``.

``You`re not aware of a lot of things..A bunch of people who call themselves evangelical don`t vote straight ticket gop..10 million white evangelicals voted for Gore in 00. ``

LOL...okay, you baited me already on this evangelical nonsense...so here goes.

Gore got a good chunk of the `evangelical`/fundementalist vote. So did Jimmy Carter. So what? Most of the time, and it is expected to be this way this time around, Evangelicals (and other similar bubba types) are expected to vote for Bush.

Needless to say, despite Gore and Carter, evangelicals and those like them tend to vote Republican...that doesn`t mean all of the vote...it means the majority...and that`s all that counts, right? So I reckon we can take that evangelical MINORITY and just fuggetaboutem.


``Watching a preacher on TV gives you an insight into voting patters how?``

No, it tells us about how his followers feel about Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. And it is a VERY important issue to them. This issue shouldn`t factor in an election strongly, since neither party will ever speak out against Israel. Wanna guess why? Needless to say, the point (you very good at ignoring them) is that Israel is a very, very important issue to evangelicals and their likes.

``but anything the jewish lobby does is evil?``

LOL...dude, you are so seriously paranoid. I merely was pointing out the relaiton between the two...that`s all...quite flippantly too. THe point was that these kind of whack-jobs who lust after the sacred cow of Israel are like, if not themselves, the type who back Bush no matter what...and BOTH those people are hopeless morons...imho of course...

``Let`s face it....Your only problem with the undeniable influence of the jewish lobby is that they succeeded where you fail....If you had the same kind of power and influence, you`d be bragging about it..``

LOL, not if the consequences were the same. I would be ashamed of it...as many Jews are btw.

``Huh? And that`s indicative of a conspiracy how? So evangelicals have influence in this white house....but it`s ridiculous to suggest that the vast number of evangelicals vote on that issue.. ``

LOL, again...dude...you are the one who called my suggestion that there is a relationship between pro-zionist Jews and Evangelicals an Islamist conspiracy theory...I merely pointed out that it`s not some left-field idea, but in fact something that is out in the open. No, evangelicals don`t vote solely on that issue...no one claimed that evangelicals (or bubba-bushies in general) vote for geopoltical concerns only...but it is a very dear issue to a good number of them.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Oh...so now you`re not comparing it to a D grade....good..that`s an improvement...politics and math in one go...you`ve learnt something on chowk today.. ``

Oh dear, so touchy. IT IS not even a D grade statistically...used as a slight against moron Bush, not used as a general comment against democracy...POINT was that you were overlooking another 50% of the voters....dude, if you don`t want to address the point then move on.

``Nope...but you`re assusming that the people who don`t vote for Bush are doing so because they share your Islamists views about him...``

LOL, Michael Moore is an Islamist? He has `Islamist` views? Hell, even Bill Maher has similar views on Bush...oh dear, you`re really intent on painting anyone who disagrees as ``the Enemy`` aren`t ya?

``there won`t be more than 10% of people who`ll vote against Bush only because of his stance on the war(a stance which I happen to think is wrong) ``

Good for you cupcake! Showing signs of intelligence already! I have no idea where you`re pulling 10% from, however I`d go so far as to state (without proof meself) that Bush`s (mis)handling of the war in Iraq, hell even starting it in the first place, is a main interest point for the half who either won`t vote for him or are undecided.

``Again...you don`t have a clue and it`s painfully obvious...in 2000, gore got 40% of the evangelical vote...``

Dude, that was then and this is now. No such split exists among the evangelical vote. Keep race in mind here as well, as the Black evangelicals typically are democrat whereas the White`s are Republicans. I admit, I was not aware of that figure, however I know among white evangelicals, support for Bush now is a done deal.

``joe six-pack won`t vote for bush because he`s part of a big zionist plot for greater Israel or whatever is the Islamist conspiracy theory of the week...``

You simply have to watch the shows they churn out every Sunday, weather it`s Jack van Impe, or that Hagee guy....there is no conspiracy theory here. This is fact, and if you don`t want to admit to it then move on. The fact is, evangelicals support Israel because of religious reasons, and it is their support that actually fuels American policy towards Israel, not some secret Jewish society which rules the world. The Jewish lobby is strong, however a major target of their campaigns are pro-Israel Christians. Liberal Jews are up in arms against this, and see this bad for Israel in the long term. Clue in before you call anyone else clueless.

I can`t put it better than Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL (http://www.adl.org/Israel/evangelical.asp):


In sum, American Jews should not be apologetic or defensive about cultivating Evangelical support for Israel. The need for support by an Israel under siege is great. Fortunately, Evangelical support is overwhelming, consistent, and unconditional. And the fears that such support will undermine our impact on other concerns that American Jews have are overblown, since we will continue, to articulate in forceful ways our significant disagreements on social issues.



``there are very few people who`ll vote for him because of their biblical belief in greater Israel... ``

Nonsense.

``Iraq having WMDs is more plausible than the Islamist kooky theory about 9/11 being out of the zionist playbook..``

Actually, it wasn`t. It was only more believable to you.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I see no particular insights in this article, and a lot of trite stuff. E.g. ``Musharraf could still do Bush the greatest favour possible if he could, somehow, become a factor in the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden``. (This is not even true, when you think of it - the issue with the US public is not that Bush is not doing enough in response to 9/11. The issue is that he is doing the wrong things. Osama may not be dead, but he is seen as having been effectively quarantined in the tribal areas, and is already mentioned more often in cartoons and late night show hosts than by serious news analysts.)

This article is required reading - if you have been shipwrecked on a deserted island for the past few years. Otherwise, it can be safely skipped with no loss whatsover.

Re:#2

You have hit the bull`s eye. Mush is nothing but a lapdog of Bush. If Bush says jump, he will jump. So much for all the Pakistani talk of ghairat!!

arjun_m,

``So you think the American people will vote Dubya out of office because the Europeans aren`t on the side of the US? ``

Dude, that`s just one of many reasons why many Americans feel they should elect the man out. Bush is an idiot if they vote for him or not. If some Americans don`t realize what they need, then it`s only going to make things worse for all. But, idiot see idiot do.

``gee..I forgot this was a mostly paki website..to be acceptable in pakiland, you need 96% of the vote(or was it 97.5)...For the rest of the uncivilized world, getting more than 50% of the vote would win you an election.. ``

The point was that there`s another 50% out there who won`t vote for the man. I hardly call that an overwhealming base of support, nor is the other 50% so insignificant that they`re not even worthy of mention. But of course, those guys must be in some kind of alliance with OBL...

``...the fact remains...The Islamists are mad at Dubya(and almost everyone else), the American people aren`t...``

Ohhhh, I don`t know `bout that. Sure, bubba-bushie out in middle of nowhere USA may think Bush is some kind of Holy man. You know, the kind that blab on about Israel as much as the Arabs do (something about it being neccessary to exist as a prerequesite for the Jesus to come back)...those guys are hopeless. Bush could have been half-monkey, they would have still voted for the man. Then you got GI-Joe types, who just like ``kicken ass``, and judgin` by Abu Gharib, they like doing other things to ass aswell. Well, those psycos always vote Republican anyway.

But there`s tonnes more who are just ignorant, and actually buy this business about tax cuts working for the economy, or that the war in Iraq was about WMD, or security, or eliminating a dictator, or whatever the hell the current excuse is. Now, these people can be educated...

``IF they vote dubya out of office, it won`t be because of the Iraq war or some other issue that drives Islamists up the wall..``

Sure as hell, it`s Iraq and a whole whack of issues that generate Islamists and piss off people well beyond the Muslim world that will get him re-elected...

``Sure...I`ll bet there will be a bunch of people who`ll see reason and agree that the pentagon wasn`t hit by a plane or that 4000 jews were absent from the WTC on 9/11...``

LOL, or think that there were no WMD`s in Iraq or that it wasn`t a key state sponsor of terrorism...oh wait...that ``conspiracy theory`` was actually a good old fashoined...*gasp*, conspiracy!

Chowk should have a policy re. those who write an article but never interact.
...shurly laa kay tamasha dekhade nein!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

urstruly # 6 - you write ``Pakistani people in Briton are more politically evloved than us, here is US. They always greet this criminal with rotten eggs on his motorcade. ``

Here in US we are bound by the Patriot Act with its ``either you are with us or against us`` provision. And therefore we cannot freely throw rotten eggs at the motorcades of visiting dignitaries considered to be allies in war on terror - without being branded terrorist sympathizers ourselves.

The relationship is a mutually parasitic one.

---

arjun,

[Credibility in whose eyes? Americans who vote in American elections or Islamists who don`t?]

Well, there`s also Europe and other countries America desperatly wants on side. But that you break the world down into those who vote for bush (not even all American voters) and Islamists, I think your worldview is what lacks credibility...oh well lookie there, so does the neo-con one...now ain`t dat a coinkydink.

[popular angst where? Dubya`s approval number are over 50% now...]

...if that were a grade it wouldn`t even be a D. And that`s sad, `cause D is for Dubya. He`s used to that kind of grade, but the point is...what of the other 50%? I reckon you and Dubya think they`re all Islamists..teehehehe.

[just cos the Islamists mad about the war on terrorism(Afghanistan) and other wars(Iraq) don`t like dubya, it doesn`t mean there is anger among the American aam junta ]

No, because a good number of them are neo-con fascists. The author I guess hopes that there`s enough that aren`t in so far deep that they can be swayed to the side of reason.

[huh? suspect in whose eyes? The Islamists who hate him? Or the voting American population where his job approval is more than 50%.]

LOL, no, to those who want democracy in their own country but Captain Democracy and the Freedom Force have decided it`s better to support regional dictators instead. That`s why.