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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (21486)	8/6/2007 9:10:09 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

really, jack, if you cant add a little substance, use your time more fruitfully, like getting some help with our anger management issues

To: jlallen who wrote (21486)	8/6/2007 9:12:54 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 71588

here, for example, is something of substance: "Pakistan Ambassador to U.S.: What Safe Havens? By Spencer Ackerman - August 6, 2007, 7:08 PM In an interview just released with Newsweek's Michael Hirsch, Mahmud Ali Durrani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, denied that his country's Federally Administered Tribal Areas provide, as the National Intelligence Estimate put it (pdf), "safehaven" for al-Qaeda. And he used the WMD fiasco as a way of discrediting U.S. intelligence on Pakistan: (M)any times [American] information is faulty. It’s not timely. It’s inaccurate. It’s the same intelligence you’ve been getting in Iraq. People here [in Washington] take it as the gospel truth. We challenge that very seriously. Durrani expends a great deal of effort parsing the difference between a "safe haven" (none in Pakistan!), a "compound" (depends on your definition) and a "training camp" (ok, they've got a few of those). And there's more. At a hearing two weeks ago, defense and intelligence officials attributed the growth of al-Qaeda in Pakistan to a controversial 2006 peace accord in the tribal areas that moved the Pakistani military into a more reactive posture. A senior defense official, Mary Beth Long, said that despite fierce fighting over the last month, the Pakistanis might try to revive that accord. Sure enough, Durrani says that's what's happened: Even today, there are tribal leaders who are literally begging the government not to destroy this agreement. So is the agreement still intact? I think so. Somehow, this doesn't seem like what counterterrorism officials mean when they talk about the importance of "denying safehavens."