More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan

Science > Abortion > More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Bill Case"
Date:	08 Aug 2004 06:12:52 PM
Object:	More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan

The news treatment and Bush spin on this has been that the terror alert / al
qaeda computer guy / arrests situation of recent days marks a point where US
anti-terror efforts are statring to pay off, we're winning etc. FOX news
really pushed that.
However, it appaarently only involves the Pakistanis apprehending one guy,
turning him, and then having his cover blown rapidly by the Bush
administration. His usefullness was cut short, and the Pakis (and other
intelligence agencies) are angry - at time when some Paki politicians are
questioning why Musharraf is cow-towing to the US anyway. They don't think
Pakistan is getting anything out of the this US "war on terror".
Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may be
more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the guy
could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.
Does anybody remember the stories about how closely Churchill protected the
info that the German codes had been broken? junior Bush wouldn't make a
pimple on Churchills *****.
Read on....
from url http://www.juancole.com/
Sunday, August 08, 2004
CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden?
The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem
Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has finally
hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday.
On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York
Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing
Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see
below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans
for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had
not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he
might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of
Usamah Bin Laden himself!
Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had
admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to
the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for
the Pakistani government. (!!!)
Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush
administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just
said?!)
Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name was
released, it was a mistake.
I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is
from AP:
"Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great
deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . .
that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and
al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network . .
.. remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."
But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the
most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster
and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda.
Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six persons
inside the United States by email.
posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM
.

User: "commutator"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 09:41:03 AM

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<UryRc.13757$cK.11053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

The news treatment and Bush spin on this has been that the terror alert / al
qaeda computer guy / arrests situation of recent days marks a point where US
anti-terror efforts are statring to pay off, we're winning etc. FOX news
really pushed that.

However, it appaarently only involves the Pakistanis apprehending one guy,
turning him, and then having his cover blown rapidly by the Bush
administration. His usefullness was cut short, and the Pakis (and other
intelligence agencies) are angry - at time when some Paki politicians are
questioning why Musharraf is cow-towing to the US anyway. They don't think
Pakistan is getting anything out of the this US "war on terror".

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may be
more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the guy
could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

Does anybody remember the stories about how closely Churchill protected the
info that the German codes had been broken? junior Bush wouldn't make a
pimple on Churchills *****.

Read on....

from url http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, August 08, 2004
CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden?

The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem
Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has finally
hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday.

On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York
Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing
Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see
below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans
for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had
not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he
might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of
Usamah Bin Laden himself!

Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had
admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to
the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for
the Pakistani government. (!!!)

Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush
administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just
said?!)

Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name was
released, it was a mistake.

I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is
from AP:

"Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great
deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . .
that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and
al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network . .
. remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the
most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster
and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda.

Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six persons
inside the United States by email.

posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM

As much as I can't stand the Bush administration the mere concept that
they did not know he was a double-agent is laughable. You're
Pakistani intelligence, you have a DA, an arrest is made on said DA
You IMMEDIATELY take steps to protect the identity including informing
all allies at the highest levels.
The memo from the Pakistanis would be something as simple as:
We made some arrests
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE GIVE OUT THEIR IDENTITIES
signature
They're feigning ignorance, it's the most logical explanation. They
blew the source and used it as justification for raising the terror
level and bustling about to impress the populace. They didn't expect
the Pakistanis and British to call them on it however. Remember a guy
could be arrested and still have his identity as a DA preserved even
if his network knows he's been arrested, that-a-way he's not killed on
release along with family, etc. plus it's always best to leave the
enemy to assume that it has never been infiltrated by a double-agent,
let them feel that they are all unflippable. The Pakistanis released
the nature of the DA because they knew, and were *****, that the
Bushies outed their agent ON PURPOSE.
Consider this post a rant if you want. I ain't saying it's the truth
it just seems the most likely explanation to me at this point.....
I really hope they aren't that stupid, not that stupid, not that stupid
(rocking back and forth in fear)
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 07:18:05 AM

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<UryRc.13757$cK.11053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Actually if the strategy is to tell al qaeda about every double agent,
it should be clear in the course of coming months and years that Osama
Bin Laden will become the ruler of Saudi Arabia. The trick is not to
blow the cover of valuable sgents for political expediency. Can you
imagine Churchill telling Hitler that all the Nazi agents were working
for the British?
If the 'other' position is that the US didn't know he was a
double-agent, then it means that the people fighting the US war are
not the US, but their ally, who may change sides or hold back. So if
Bush is to be believed the US is a spectator reliant on Pakistan. Or
if Bush is telling lies and he has put his country in danger for the
most trivial expediency. It is one or the other.

However, it appaarently only involves the Pakistanis apprehending one guy,
turning him, and then having his cover blown rapidly by the Bush
administration. His usefullness was cut short, and the Pakis (and other
intelligence agencies) are angry - at time when some Paki politicians are
questioning why Musharraf is cow-towing to the US anyway. They don't think
Pakistan is getting anything out of the this US "war on terror".

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may be
more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the guy
could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

Does anybody remember the stories about how closely Churchill protected the
info that the German codes had been broken? junior Bush wouldn't make a
pimple on Churchills *****.

Read on....

from url http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, August 08, 2004
CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden?

The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem
Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has finally
hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday.

On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York
Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing
Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see
below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans
for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had
not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he
might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of
Usamah Bin Laden himself!

Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had
admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to
the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for
the Pakistani government. (!!!)

Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush
administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just
said?!)

Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name was
released, it was a mistake.

I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is
from AP:

"Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great
deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . .
that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and
al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network . .
. remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the
most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster
and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda.

Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six persons
inside the United States by email.

posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM

User: "commutator"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 07:18:03 PM

(Hans-Joachim Maximilian) wrote in message news:<4ddd5a9c.0408090418.34c77d2e@posting.google.com>...

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<UryRc.13757$cK.11053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Actually if the strategy is to tell al qaeda about every double agent,
it should be clear in the course of coming months and years that Osama
Bin Laden will become the ruler of Saudi Arabia. The trick is not to
blow the cover of valuable sgents for political expediency. Can you
imagine Churchill telling Hitler that all the Nazi agents were working
for the British?

If the 'other' position is that the US didn't know he was a
double-agent, then it means that the people fighting the US war are
not the US, but their ally, who may change sides or hold back. So if
Bush is to be believed the US is a spectator reliant on Pakistan. Or
if Bush is telling lies and he has put his country in danger for the
most trivial expediency. It is one or the other.

As much as I can't stand the Bush administration the mere concept that
they did not know he was a double-agent is laughable. You're
Pakistani intelligence, you have a DA, an arrest is made on said DA
You IMMEDIATELY take steps to protect the identity including informing
all allies at the highest levels.
The memo from the Pakistanis would be something as simple as:
We made some arrests
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE GIVE OUT THEIR IDENTITIES
signature
They're feigning ignorance, it's the most logical explanation. They
blew the source and used it as justification for raising the terror
level and bustling about to impress the populace. They didn't expect
the Pakistanis and British to call them on it however. Remember a guy
could be arrested and still have his identity as a DA preserved even
if his network knows he's been arrested that-a-way he's not killed on
release along with family, etc. plus it's always best to leave the
enemy to assume that it has never been infiltrated by a double-agent,
let them feel that they are all unflippable. The Pakistanis released
the nature of the DA because they knew, and were *****, that the
Bushies outed their agent ON PURPOSE.
Consider this post a rant if you want. I ain't saying it's the truth
it just seems the most likely explanation to me at this point.....

User: "John Popelish"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source inPakistan	08 Aug 2004 07:42:50 PM

(Quote excerpted from article on:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=3Dstory_8-8-2004_pg7_42
"How the Pakistani double agent was 'burned' by the US")
Why in the world would Bush administration officials out =
a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is
true,
this slip is a major screw-up that casts the gravest doubts =
on the competency of the administration to fight a war on terror.
Either the motive was political calculation, or it was sheer
stupidity.
They don=92t deserve to be in power either way.=94 =
Reuters quoted British security expert Kevin Rosser =
speculating what might have been the political calculation =
if that was the motivation. He said such a disclosure was a risk =
that came with staging public alerts, but that authorities =
were meant to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations. =
=93When these public announcements are made they have to be supported =
with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety =
and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods =
of sensitive operations,=94 he said. =
Prof. Cole speculates that the scenario could have been like this. =
=93Bush gets the reports that Eisa al-Hindi had been casing =
the financial institutions, and there was an update =
as recently as January 2004 in the Al Qaeda file. =
So this could be a live operation. If Bush doesn=92t announce it,
and Al Qaeda did strike the institutions, then the fact =
that he knew of the plot beforehand would sink him =
if it came out (and it would) before the election.
So he has to announce the plot. But if he announces it,
people are going to suspect that he is wagging the dog and trying
to shore up his popularity by playing the terrorism card.
So he has to be able to give a credible account of how he got
the information. So when the press is skeptical and critical,
he decides to give up Khan so as to strengthen his case. =
In this scenario, he or someone in his immediate circle =
decides that a mere double agent inside Al Qaeda can be sacrificed
if it helps Bush get re-elected in the short term. =
On the other hand, sheer stupidity cannot be underestimated =
as an explanatory device in Washington politics."
(End quoted material)
-- =
John Popelish
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	08 Aug 2004 08:53:27 PM

"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:4116C88A.3DAF3C2C@rica.net...
(Quote excerpted from article on:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-8-2004_pg7_42
"How the Pakistani double agent was 'burned' by the US")
Why in the world would Bush administration officials out
a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is
true,
this slip is a major screw-up that casts the gravest doubts
on the competency of the administration to fight a war on terror.
Either the motive was political calculation, or it was sheer
stupidity.
They don't deserve to be in power either way."
Reuters quoted British security expert Kevin Rosser
speculating what might have been the political calculation
if that was the motivation.
The Israelis, for instance, would probably have quietly taken security
measures at those buildings and others, along with some deception measures
to divert the enemy from figuring out the source of why the measures were
being taken.
As far as the fanfare advertised measures Bush did being ok - when do we
know to end these measures? They told people to keep going to the buildings
as normal. The enemy operatives may shift targets now, or wait and see how
long road blocks etc remain. The best step was searches over a wide area for
car / truck bombs and to use the now blown agent to determine what cell(s)
exist in the US or are coming in to execute the attacks.
Bottom line and political differences aside - Bush is genuinely dangerous to
US security.
What intelligence organizations will share info with us now? What if the
Pakis had sent a guy in based off the blown agent - would he be killed?
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 07:11:18 AM

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rOARc.14072$9Y6.11678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

The Israelis would have tried to intercept the teams. In Britain they
record every single vehicle entering the City of London.
However against a sophisicated organization it rarely helps at the
time. A big glass building is always vulerable, it can't be protected
forever.
The British moved to armour plated infrastructure. In Belfast when the
Europa was hit by a truck bomb the windows at the Europa were okay,
but buildings across the road were virtually demolished.
So they armour plated them as well. Ultimately the only windows that
go pop are a mile away etc. However a truck bomb can't really be
stopped. Truck-bomb resistant glass costs a heap of cash.

As far as the fanfare advertised measures Bush did being ok - when do we
know to end these measures? They told people to keep going to the buildings
as normal. The enemy operatives may shift targets now, or wait and see how
long road blocks etc remain.

The targets are often arbitrary and the security surrounding them
might be the only distinction between one target and another big glass
building down the road. however once both sides define a target the
end result is for it usually to remain a target.
With the IRA the downside was usually a billion dollars of damage,
collateral heritage losses (Baltic Exchange etc.) and one or two
deaths.
Al Qaeda are not in the 'two hour warning' gentleman's club. They will
want the damage and the massacre.

The best step was searches over a wide area for
car / truck bombs and to use the now blown agent to determine what cell(s)
exist in the US or are coming in to execute the attacks.

Bottom line and political differences aside - Bush is genuinely dangerous to
US security.

What intelligence organizations will share info with us now? What if the
Pakis had sent a guy in based off the blown agent - would he be killed?

The US does not seem to know its arse from its elbow. If they did not
know he was a double-agent, that means the US adminisration are not in
control of their war, and if they did know, it means they will never
win because they're too stupid, corrupt etc.
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 11:05:17 AM

"Hans-Joachim Maximilian" <hans-joachim.maximilian@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:4ddd5a9c.0408090411.439aca0d@posting.google.com...

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<rOARc.14072$9Y6.11678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

measures

to divert the enemy from figuring out the source of why the measures

were

being taken.

The Israelis would have tried to intercept the teams. In Britain they
record every single vehicle entering the City of London.

However against a sophisicated organization it rarely helps at the
time. A big glass building is always vulerable, it can't be protected
forever.

The British moved to armour plated infrastructure. In Belfast when the
Europa was hit by a truck bomb the windows at the Europa were okay,
but buildings across the road were virtually demolished.

So they armour plated them as well. Ultimately the only windows that
go pop are a mile away etc. However a truck bomb can't really be
stopped. Truck-bomb resistant glass costs a heap of cash.

As far as the fanfare advertised measures Bush did being ok - when do we
know to end these measures? They told people to keep going to the

buildings

as normal. The enemy operatives may shift targets now, or wait and see

how

long road blocks etc remain.

The targets are often arbitrary and the security surrounding them
might be the only distinction between one target and another big glass
building down the road. however once both sides define a target the
end result is for it usually to remain a target.

With the IRA the downside was usually a billion dollars of damage,
collateral heritage losses (Baltic Exchange etc.) and one or two
deaths.

Al Qaeda are not in the 'two hour warning' gentleman's club. They will
want the damage and the massacre.

The best step was searches over a wide area for
car / truck bombs and to use the now blown agent to determine what

cell(s)

exist in the US or are coming in to execute the attacks.

Bottom line and political differences aside - Bush is genuinely

dangerous to

US security.

What intelligence organizations will share info with us now? What if the
Pakis had sent a guy in based off the blown agent - would he be killed?

The US does not seem to know its arse from its elbow.

On this I disagree. The US has personnel who potentially could do as good or
better a job at intelligence and security as any country. But with this kind
of stupidity and cowardice from Bush at top levels, the whole effort is
deranged.
And the press says very little, in fact this episode has been re-arranged
into a positive thing to the public. Amazing.
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 09:37:30 AM

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1hNRc.14469$9Y6.4573@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Hans-Joachim Maximilian" <hans-joachim.maximilian@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:4ddd5a9c.0408090411.439aca0d@posting.google.com...

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<rOARc.14072$9Y6.11678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

measures

to divert the enemy from figuring out the source of why the measures

were

being taken.

The Israelis would have tried to intercept the teams. In Britain they
record every single vehicle entering the City of London.

However against a sophisicated organization it rarely helps at the
time. A big glass building is always vulerable, it can't be protected
forever.

The British moved to armour plated infrastructure. In Belfast when the
Europa was hit by a truck bomb the windows at the Europa were okay,
but buildings across the road were virtually demolished.

So they armour plated them as well. Ultimately the only windows that
go pop are a mile away etc. However a truck bomb can't really be
stopped. Truck-bomb resistant glass costs a heap of cash.

As far as the fanfare advertised measures Bush did being ok - when do we
know to end these measures? They told people to keep going to the

buildings

as normal. The enemy operatives may shift targets now, or wait and see

how

long road blocks etc remain.

The targets are often arbitrary and the security surrounding them
might be the only distinction between one target and another big glass
building down the road. however once both sides define a target the
end result is for it usually to remain a target.

With the IRA the downside was usually a billion dollars of damage,
collateral heritage losses (Baltic Exchange etc.) and one or two
deaths.

Al Qaeda are not in the 'two hour warning' gentleman's club. They will
want the damage and the massacre.

The best step was searches over a wide area for
car / truck bombs and to use the now blown agent to determine what

cell(s)

exist in the US or are coming in to execute the attacks.

Bottom line and political differences aside - Bush is genuinely

dangerous to

US security.

What intelligence organizations will share info with us now? What if the
Pakis had sent a guy in based off the blown agent - would he be killed?

The US does not seem to know its arse from its elbow.

On this I disagree. The US has personnel who potentially could do as good or
better a job at intelligence and security as any country. But with this kind
of stupidity and cowardice from Bush at top levels, the whole effort is
deranged.

And the press says very little, in fact this episode has been re-arranged
into a positive thing to the public. Amazing.

It did not look positive. It looked like fifty TV stations had been
invited to view the US making a fool of itself at a couple of
important buildings which will have little obvious security next week
etc.
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	08 Aug 2004 11:13:07 PM

John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
: Why in the world would Bush administration officials out
: a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
: In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true,
And there's the operative question. It could be a deliberate 'burn'
of someone who wasn't even our asset. You'll never know....
--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."
-- Winston Churchill
.

User: "John Popelish"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source inPakistan	08 Aug 2004 11:38:35 PM

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

: Why in the world would Bush administration officials out
: a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
: In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true,

And there's the operative question. It could be a deliberate 'burn'
of someone who wasn't even our asset.

I agree with you.
But you have misattributed these words to me. I just presented a link
to an article and an excerpt for your consideration.

You'll never know....

Not for absolute certain. But I might eventually have the basis for a
somewhat informed opinion. Is there any kind of information that
would convince you one way or the other? Do you trust anything you
read from any source?
--
John Popelish
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 08:58:42 AM

John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:>
:> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
:>
:> : Why in the world would Bush administration officials out
:> : a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against Al-Qaeda?
:> : In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true,
:>
:> And there's the operative question. It could be a deliberate 'burn'
:> of someone who wasn't even our asset.
:
:I agree with you.
:
:But you have misattributed these words to me.
Then you misattributed them to yourself. I just quoted what you said.
:I just presented a link
:to an article and an excerpt for your consideration.
:
:> You'll never know....
:
:Not for absolute certain. But I might eventually have the basis for a
:somewhat informed opinion. Is there any kind of information that
:would convince you one way or the other? Do you trust anything you
:read from any source?
When it comes to intelligence issues, there's damned little I would
trust in the open press. Intelligence is a deliberately devious game
and the press typically has enough trouble getting it right when no
one is trying to deceive them.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 11:06:51 AM

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fj0fh0l9b3a5iq5bt2dgcd2n1m3p5lbmc0@4ax.com...

true,

:>
:> And there's the operative question. It could be a deliberate 'burn'
:> of someone who wasn't even our asset.
:
:I agree with you.
:
:But you have misattributed these words to me.

Then you misattributed them to yourself. I just quoted what you said.

:I just presented a link
:to an article and an excerpt for your consideration.
:
:> You'll never know....
:
:Not for absolute certain. But I might eventually have the basis for a
:somewhat informed opinion. Is there any kind of information that
:would convince you one way or the other? Do you trust anything you
:read from any source?

When it comes to intelligence issues, there's damned little I would
trust in the open press. Intelligence is a deliberately devious game
and the press typically has enough trouble getting it right when no
one is trying to deceive them.

Laughable response.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 12:13:47 PM

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:12:52 GMT, "Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may be
more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the guy
could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

One day the Bush intelligence was "4 years old" and now Bush ruined
"current intelligence".
The Democrats have picked up the flip-flopping Kerry techniques
perfectly haven't they?
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 12:29:36 PM

<mange@merde.com> wrote in message
news:kpmfh0ttbithrgni50qvl61a7qfvngh2d3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:12:52 GMT, "Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may

more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the

guy

could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

One day the Bush intelligence was "4 years old" and now Bush ruined
"current intelligence".

What a stupid assed comment.
The surveillance of the buildings dated back a few years, but was still of
valid concern.
The al qaeda guy who was apprehended by the Pakis and then put to work for
OUR SIDE, whose computer had the files containing the surveillance, was
apprehended just weeks ago.

The Democrats have picked up the flip-flopping Kerry techniques
perfectly haven't they?

You want to talk about flip flops you stupid *****? Here..
We need a decisive, President who doesn't read children's books when
America is under attack, this flip-flopping George Bush is an
astounding flop.
Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.
Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.
Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.
Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.
Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.
Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.
Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now
he's against them again.
Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for
changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police,
emergency); then he doesn't.
Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts
their benefits and health care.
Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he
secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other
places and took many more anti-environmental actions.
Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully
fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read
position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.
Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough
political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized
Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had
served six years in the U.S. Senate.
During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being
filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a
lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage
of Florida law to ask for a recount.
On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials
drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26
Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking
them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed
doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts.
Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.
Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus
test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly
appointed judges who were against abortion.
In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington,
Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned;
he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases � after
he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy
campaign contributor.
Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports
it.
Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in
South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to
sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would
not call for a vote.
Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by
the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the
U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.
Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission
citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.
Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government
jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.
Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade
sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which
pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and
North Korea.
Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more
money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the
election, after all.
Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the
terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now
says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional
authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again.
Now he's saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they
will. Or is he?
The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions
don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.
Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an
"imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied
saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear
weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George
W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush,
March 13, 2002
Are you getting tired of this? Well, some in the American military are
getting tired of this, too: "The (Bush) administration has an overly
simplistic view of how and when to use our military. By not bringing
in our friends and allies, they have created a mess in Iraq and are
crippling our forces around the world." -Retired Admiral William
Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Ronald Reagan
http://www.geocities.com/jacknichols123/johnjohn.htm
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 09:33:47 AM

"mange@merde.com" <mange@merde.com> wrote in message news:<kpmfh0ttbithrgni50qvl61a7qfvngh2d3@4ax.com>...

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:12:52 GMT, "Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

One day the Bush intelligence was "4 years old" and now Bush ruined
"current intelligence".

The Democrats have picked up the flip-flopping Kerry techniques
perfectly haven't they?

Security agencies do not do those kind of stunts for real issues. If
the threat is eventual or possible then the security has to stay
indefinitely rather than here one day and gone the next.
The trick is to have one or two uniformed officers looking
disinterested and the real security looking for people looking at the
security. It is not supposed to be fifty TV stations for every city
block.
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 05:43:42 AM

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:12:52 GMT, "Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Hey, billy boy, it's wasn't President Bush. It was the Bush administration, which could
be any one of thousands and thousands of people. I suspect whoever did it was a
registered 'rat.
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 12:40:05 PM

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:si9hh05bc456qhs14ecvg2nskmbs4ff0qe@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:12:52 GMT, "Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

The news treatment and Bush spin on this has been that the terror alert /

qaeda computer guy / arrests situation of recent days marks a point where

anti-terror efforts are statring to pay off, we're winning etc. FOX news
really pushed that.

However, it appaarently only involves the Pakistanis apprehending one

guy,

turning him, and then having his cover blown rapidly by the Bush
administration. His usefullness was cut short, and the Pakis (and other
intelligence agencies) are angry - at time when some Paki politicians are
questioning why Musharraf is cow-towing to the US anyway. They don't

think

Pakistan is getting anything out of the this US "war on terror".

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may

more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the

guy

could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

Hey, billy boy, it's wasn't President Bush. It was the Bush

administration, which could

be any one of thousands and thousands of people. I suspect whoever did it

was a

registered 'rat.

Hey stupid *****,
It was the White House that did it.

User: "Kurt Ullman"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 12:54:14 PM

In article <VL7Sc.16393$9Y6.10306@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Hey stupid *****,
It was the White House that did it.

You think an inanimate building did all that stuff and then you
call someone else a stupid *****??
--
I am dyslexic of Borg, your ***** will be laminated...
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 12:59:53 PM

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aZ7Sc.16917$cK.9234@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

In article <VL7Sc.16393$9Y6.10306@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bill Case" <Billc548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Hey stupid *****,
It was the White House that did it.

You think an inanimate building did all that stuff and then you
call someone else a stupid *****??

So you think I was refering to the building itself, take your meds.
.

User: "Fear gan dia"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	08 Aug 2004 08:16:58 PM

Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by "Bill Case"
in <UryRc.13757$cK.11053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

Typical screw up by Junior and his gang. Remember Valerie Plame?

Does anybody remember the stories about how closely Churchill protected the
info that the German codes had been broken? junior Bush wouldn't make a
pimple on Churchills *****.

Read on....

from url http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, August 08, 2004
CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden?

The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem
Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has finally
hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday.

On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York
Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing
Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see
below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the Americans
for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had
not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he
might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of
Usamah Bin Laden himself!

Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had
admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to
the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for
the Pakistani government. (!!!)

Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush
administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just
said?!)

Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name was
released, it was a mistake.

I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is
from AP:

"Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great
deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . .
that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and
al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network . .
.. remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the
most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge disaster
and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda.

Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six persons
inside the United States by email.

posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM

--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's *****."
- Barry Goldwater
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	08 Aug 2004 11:14:28 PM

"Fear gan dia" <nqhnlnthrdhx@ltrxdsrnsnhl.com> wrote:
:Typical screw up by Junior and his gang. Remember Valerie Plame?
Yeah. Does the phrase "no evidence" mean anything to you, or are you
just all about rumour and innuendo?
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 12:45:40 AM

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com...

Those are some false words right there. Condi Rice told Wolf Blitzer CNN
that the Whitehouse DID make public the name of the Paki's Al Qaeda source,
and she said she didn't even know if he was a double agent.
Why did you post a lie?
--

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 06:43:37 AM

"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8cERc.14235$9Y6.8060@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com...

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

How smart is she then? I thought the US were in charge of this Al
Qaeda war? Sounds to me they get their news from the net or CNN. The
entire thing about the Bush administration is that it is all so very
hard to believe.
The one item that is always out of stock is credibility. I am not
saying Kerry has more, he does not look (to me) like a good candidate
either, however the Bush govt. is a mess, it is all over the road.
.

User: "Fred J. McCall"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 09:14:25 AM

(Hans-Joachim Maximilian) wrote:
:"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8cERc.14235$9Y6.8060@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
:> "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> news:ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com...
:> > "Fear gan dia" <nqhnlnthrdhx@ltrxdsrnsnhl.com> wrote:
:> >
:> > :Typical screw up by Junior and his gang. Remember Valerie Plame?
:> >
:> > Yeah. Does the phrase "no evidence" mean anything to you, or are you
:> > just all about rumour and innuendo?
:>
:> Those are some false words right there. Condi Rice told Wolf Blitzer CNN
:> that the Whitehouse DID make public the name of the Paki's Al Qaeda source,
:> and she said she didn't even know if he was a double agent.
Which has bugger all to do with Valerie Plame, which is what I was
referring to.

:> Why did you post a lie?
Why don't you learn to read?
:How smart is she then? I thought the US were in charge of this Al
:Qaeda war? Sounds to me they get their news from the net or CNN. The
:entire thing about the Bush administration is that it is all so very
:hard to believe.
I quite frankly believe very little that anyone has to say when it
comes to things like this. There's way too much room for deliberate
deviousness and manipulation of the story in order to 'burn' someone
who may not even be yours.
:The one item that is always out of stock is credibility. I am not
:saying Kerry has more, he does not look (to me) like a good candidate
:either, however the Bush govt. is a mess, it is all over the road.
Which is still better than cruising through lakes and ditches, which
seems to be where the Democrats are.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.

User: "Bill Case"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 11:25:14 AM

"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9h1fh01a7h6jn1jd840naubk04v4i24ivu@4ax.com...

hans-joachim.maximilian@ntlworld.com (Hans-Joachim Maximilian) wrote:

:"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<8cERc.14235$9Y6.8060@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

:> "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> news:ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com...
:> > "Fear gan dia" <nqhnlnthrdhx@ltrxdsrnsnhl.com> wrote:
:> >
:> > :Typical screw up by Junior and his gang. Remember Valerie Plame?
:> >
:> > Yeah. Does the phrase "no evidence" mean anything to you, or are you
:> > just all about rumour and innuendo?
:>
:> Those are some false words right there. Condi Rice told Wolf Blitzer

CNN

:> that the Whitehouse DID make public the name of the Paki's Al Qaeda

source,

:> and she said she didn't even know if he was a double agent.

Which has bugger all to do with Valerie Plame, which is what I was
referring to.

:> Why did you post a lie?

Why don't you learn to read?

Idiot, you're respoding to the wrong poster. Why don't you learn to read and
write?
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 09:44:30 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<9h1fh01a7h6jn1jd840naubk04v4i24ivu@4ax.com>...

hans-joachim.maximilian@ntlworld.com (Hans-Joachim Maximilian) wrote:

:"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<8cERc.14235$9Y6.8060@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
:> "Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> news:ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com...
:> > "Fear gan dia" <nqhnlnthrdhx@ltrxdsrnsnhl.com> wrote:
:> >
:> > :Typical screw up by Junior and his gang. Remember Valerie Plame?
:> >
:> > Yeah. Does the phrase "no evidence" mean anything to you, or are you
:> > just all about rumour and innuendo?
:>
:> Those are some false words right there. Condi Rice told Wolf Blitzer CNN
:> that the Whitehouse DID make public the name of the Paki's Al Qaeda source,
:> and she said she didn't even know if he was a double agent.

Which has bugger all to do with Valerie Plame, which is what I was
referring to.

:> Why did you post a lie?

Why don't you learn to read?

:How smart is she then? I thought the US were in charge of this Al
:Qaeda war? Sounds to me they get their news from the net or CNN. The
:entire thing about the Bush administration is that it is all so very
:hard to believe.

I quite frankly believe very little that anyone has to say when it
comes to things like this. There's way too much room for deliberate
deviousness and manipulation of the story in order to 'burn' someone
who may not even be yours.

:The one item that is always out of stock is credibility. I am not
:saying Kerry has more, he does not look (to me) like a good candidate
:either, however the Bush govt. is a mess, it is all over the road.

Which is still better than cruising through lakes and ditches, which
seems to be where the Democrats are.

It is Bush who is responsible for the comedy of errors. Kerry may I
suppose prove just as inadequate should he be elected.
However the person in the White House is George Bush and not Senator
John Kerry who may very well be cruising lakes, ditches etc.
.

User: "Hans-Joachim Maximilian"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	09 Aug 2004 06:45:46 AM

Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ffudh0lari3de9pnlateqanqvahgmso5hm@4ax.com>...

The US does not seem to be in control of its war does it? If Ms Rice
is completely in the dark about crucial developments, it might be wise
to presume that Bush has allowed himself to know even less. Of course
they might simply be lying, and either way it looks real bad doesn't
it?
.

User: "Bubba Test"
Title: Re: More on recent terror alert - Bush blows under cover source in Pakistan	10 Aug 2004 09:00:57 AM

ghj
"Bill Case" <Bill548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UryRc.13757$cK.11053@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

The news treatment and Bush spin on this has been that the terror alert /

qaeda computer guy / arrests situation of recent days marks a point where

anti-terror efforts are statring to pay off, we're winning etc. FOX news
really pushed that.

However, it appaarently only involves the Pakistanis apprehending one guy,
turning him, and then having his cover blown rapidly by the Bush
administration. His usefullness was cut short, and the Pakis (and other
intelligence agencies) are angry - at time when some Paki politicians are
questioning why Musharraf is cow-towing to the US anyway. They don't think
Pakistan is getting anything out of the this US "war on terror".

Bush's outing of this intelligence asset will SET BACK things. There may

more arrests, and news noise, but this was a stupid mistake, perhaps the

guy

could have even led to getting bin Laden himself.

Does anybody remember the stories about how closely Churchill protected

the

info that the German codes had been broken? junior Bush wouldn't make a
pimple on Churchills *****.

Read on....

from url http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, August 08, 2004
CNN on Khan Scandal: Has it Prevented the Capture of Bin Laden?

The story of how the Bush administration prematurely outed Muhammad Naeem
Noor Khan, a double agent working for Pakistan against al-Qaeda, has

finally

hit cable television news. MSNBC picked up the story on Saturday.

On Sunday at around 12:30 pm, Wolf Blitzer's show referred to it. New York
Senator Charles Schumer criticized the Bush administration for revealing
Khan's name. He noted the annoyance of British Home Minister Blunkett (see
below) and Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat with the

Americans

for blowing Khan's cover. He said Hayat complained that if Khan's name had
not been reveaeled to the New York Times by the Bush administration, he
might well have provided information that would have led to the capture of
Usamah Bin Laden himself!

Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with US National
Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice on background. He reported that she had
admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to
the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working

for

the Pakistani government. (!!!)

Schumer later backed off and said we did not know for sure that the Bush
administration had leaked Khan's name. (Didn't he hear what Wolf had just
said?!)

Republican George Allen (R-Virginia) actually agreed that if Khan's name

was

released, it was a mistake.

I cannot find the Hayat quote mentioned by Schumer. The closest I come is
from AP:

"Whenever we get hold of high profile al-Qaida activists, there is a great
deal of euphoria and excitement, and it leads to a lot of optimism . . .
that it will lead us to the eventual prize - the apprehension of Osama and
al-Zawahri," Hayyat said. "But we have to be very cautious. This network .

. remains a potent threat to Pakistan, and to civilized humanity."

But Schumer's point is correct, anyway. The outing of Khan, probably the
most important asset the US has ever had inside al-Qaeda, is a huge

disaster

and a setback to attempts to finish off the top leadership of al-Qaeda.

Chillingly, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was in contact with five or six

persons

inside the United States by email.

posted by Juan @ 8/8/2004 12:50:10 PM

Page 1 of 1