Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Soileau who wrote (124521)	2/8/2004 11:13:07 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Yes you may, but that claim is simply not true. No so fast. For all Tenet's claims of "penetration", it's pretty clear that we had no notion of the size or scope of the operation, that AQ Khan was running a Sams Clubs for Libya, Iran and North Korea. That's certainly the impression I got from David Kay. More than that, whatever we knew before, we had little leverage to stop it. Nothing compared to what we have now that Libya flipped, gave up the goods on the network, and we can lay the evidence on Musharref and demand that he do something to stop it. There is evidence that we can work with Musharref; and until it's clear that we cannot, we should try. Exactly the process you claim was insufficient with regard to Iraq It was insufficient with Iraq, because Iraq was run by Saddam Hussein. A murderous megalomaniac dictator who was our enemy. Musharref is not in that league. It doesn't mean that our current efforts with Pakistan are sufficient, either, but they might be. I don't know. It does mean that other tools than invasion are appropriate. You seem to have this "one size must fit all" bee in you bonnet, about how if we apply a foreign policy one place, we must do it everywhere. Where do you get this peculiar notion? Each situation is different, and we are not running by your abstract notions of "fair" but by the limits of our power and the urgency of the threats.

To: John Soileau who wrote (124521)	2/8/2004 11:51:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

More on Pakistani nuclear proliferation: "Dr. Khan was not working alone. Dr. Khan was part of a process," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. agency that is conducting the probe along with U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies. "There were items that were manufactured in other countries. There were items that were assembled in a different country." Meanwhile, Pakistani officials disclosed that they had launched their own probe of Khan's activities in October after the Bush administration presented what one senior official described as "mind-boggling" evidence that Khan was peddling nuclear technology and expertise to Iran, Libya and North Korea, and had attempted to do the same with Iraq (news - web sites) and Syria. The evidence included detailed records of Khan's travels to Libya, Iran, North Korea and other nations, along with intercepted phone conversations, financial documents and accounts of meetings with foreign businessmen involved in illicit nuclear sales, the Pakistani officials said. story.news.yahoo.com Now, I'm not disparaging whatever the CIA found out. It may have been a crucial beginning to the case, and probably was critical leverage in talking to Gaddafi. BUT, it surely doesn't bear comparison to what we know NOW that Gaddafi has come out with his hands up and given up his programs. And by the strangest of coincidences, Gaddafi only did that after he saw Saddam crawl out of his spider hole.