Ahmadinejad writes letter to Bush! EXCLUSIVE!
cw | 17.05.2006 22:33 | Analysis
that letter to Bush
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear old friend,
Hey! What's with the Hitler comparisons?
After all didn't your Grandpappy financially
support the Hitler regime before WWII?
yours
Ahmadinejad
PS thanks for sending that nuke guy Khan
very helpful
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and FBI, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial baron for nearly eight months after the U.S. entered the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://burningbush.twentythree.us/index.htm
backed up with much more
and actual pdf files of documants
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/bushnazi.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How CIA "protected" A.Q. Khan
Hasan Suroor - hindu.com - Aug 10, 2005
He was caught stealing designs from a Dutch uranium plant. Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers in a radio programme says the CIA saved Khan from going to prison.
LONDON: In a disclosure that is likely to embarrass American authorities, the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers has revealed how the CIA protected the controversial Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and saved him from going to prison after he was caught stealing secret designs from a Dutch uranium plant in 1975.
Mr. Lubbers, who was Minister of Economic Affairs at the time, told a Dutch radio station on Tuesday that because of pressure from the CIA no action was taken against Dr. Khan and he was quietly allowed to return to Pakistan.
"Copying secret designs"
In a 35-minute programme on Radio Argos, which describes itself as the Dutch equivalent of the BBC, Mr. Lubbers said that Dr. Khan was then working for a company called FDO and his job allowed him access to the British-German-Dutch uranium enrichment facility, Urenco, in Almelo in the Netherlands. On one of his visits, he was allegedly found "copying" and taking away secret designs from Urenco. According to Mr. Lubbers, Dr. Khan was banned from entering Urenco and the matter was reported to the police but, surprisingly, the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. He said he learnt later that the CIA told the Dutch authorities not to arrest him as they wanted to follow him in order to find out more about his activities relating to Pakistan's secret nuclear programme.
Hushed up
Mr. Lubbers also said that the information was kept away from the country's Parliament, and the "scandal" became public only in 1979 thanks to a Dutch TV programme. Legal proceedings were launched against Dr. Khan and he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in absentia.
In 1985, Dr. Khan appealed against the judgement and the court ordered a retrial on grounds that proper procedures were not followed in the original trial. But, according to Mr. Lubbers, Dr. Khan was not put on trial a second time - again because of pressure from the CIA.
"A mistake"
Mr. Lubbers, who was Prime Minister then, was asked in the programme why his Government succumbed to CIA pressure. He admitted that, looking back, he believed it was a mistake but said at that time the political climate in Europe was such because of the Cold War "you had to listen to the Americans."
Gerard Legebeke, editor-in-chief of the programme in which Mr Lubbers was interviewed, told The Hindu that this was the first time such a senior Dutch political leader [Mr. Lubbers was Prime Minister for 12 years] had talked publicly about the CIA's role in protecting Dr. Khan at a time when American and European secret services were on his trail for smuggling nuclear material to build an atomic bomb for Pakistan.
He said that Dr. Khan, who had a Dutch wife, continued to "slip in and out of Holland illegally" and the secret services including the CIA knew about it.
http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/10/stories/2005081000711600.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kinda puts that whole Valerie Plame business into perspective
doesn't it?
It was September 2002, and then-National Security Advisor, now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was fastening on CNN perhaps the most memorable and frightening single link in the Bush regime's chain of lies propagandizing the war on Iraq. Behind her carefully planted one-liner with its grim imagery was the whole larger hoax about Saddam Hussein possessing or about to acquire weapons of mass destruction, a deception as blatant and inflammatory as claims of the Iraqi dictator's ties to Al Qaeda.
flashback: In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000. Khan has been pardoned by President General Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the US or the UN nuclear watchdog agency for questioning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Khan probe a 'closed chapter': FO hails APHC-Singh meeting
By Qudssia Akhlaque - ISLAMABAD, May 2 -2006: www.dawn.com
The Foreign Office on Tuesday declared that investigations into the Dr A.Q. Khan affair were over and as far as Pakistan was concerned the chapter was closed. "As far as we are concerned this chapter is closed," Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam stated in response to a question at a weekly news briefing.
The spokesperson asserted that the government had conducted thorough investigations into the affair and shared the information and conclusions with the International Atomic Energy Agency besides other countries, including the US. "Our cooperation has been appreciated both by the IAEA and the United States," she maintained.
In reply to a query, Ms Aslam said the Americans had not asked any questions about scientist Dr Mohammad Farooq, who was released last week. When asked if his release marked the end of Pakistan's investigations into the affair, she said: "I would presume that with Dr Farooq's release there is a closure to that."
The spokesperson said there was no question of giving the US direct access to any Pakistani scientist, saying: "We have repeatedly emphasised that, whatever information is required, questions can be forwarded to the government of Pakistan and we would get the answers. We would do the investigations and transmit this information."
JAMAAT-UD-DAWA:
Responding to a question, Ms Aslam said the government had no intention of designating the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its affiliate organisation as terrorist entities as done by the US. However, Pakistan would be legally bound to take action if they were placed on United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee's consolidated list, she said.
She said the US had approached the UNSC for designation of the organisations as terrorist outfits and for putting them on the committee's list.
"We do not put any of our entities on the terrorist list if the action is taken under the US domestic law," she said in reply to a question.
KASHMIR MEETING:
On All Parties Hurriyat Conference leaders' planned meeting with the Indian prime minister, the spokesperson said: "This is part of the trilateral engagement in which Kashmiri leaders are meeting amongst themselves and the leaders of Pakistan and India, and we welcome it."
She said Pakistan had emphasised all along that it was important to involve the Kashmiri leaders in the peace process or at least have their association with the process.
She said the killing of 34 Hindus in Doda was unfortuunate, adding: "It is a terrorist act and we condemn it." She was confident that the incident would not have any impact on the peace process.
When asked about some lobbies in the Indian establishment wanting to derail the peace process, Ms Aslam replied: "I understand that the Indian government and Indian occupied Kashmir's administration would be carrying out investigations… I'm not in the business of conspiracy theories."
"As far as we know, China did not intervene during the Kargil conflict," she said when asked about an Indian army genera's claim in this regard.
US DIALOGUE:
Ms Aslam, who participated in the inaugural session of Pakistan-US strategic dialogue in Washington last week, said various aspects of the bilateral relationship were reviewed during the meeting and both sides agreed to deepen and broaden it.
She said the foreign secretary and his US counterpart had decided that the working groups on different subjects would meet over the next two months. This, she said, would follow another round of talks between the foreign secretary and US Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns. "We expect progress once the working groups meet," she said.
In reply to a question, she said the issue of mining and fencing parts of the Afghanistan border was discussed during the meeting.
She underlined that cross-border movement was taking place from both ends, saying people from Afghanistan were also coming into Pakistan and creating trouble here.
"While we are doing all we can, we expect the other side to also initiate action and if they want they can mine the border to deter this movement," she stated.
She said the Pakistan-Afghanistan-US joint military exercises that started on Tuesday were aimed at promoting coordination among the three countries.
AIRFIELDS:
Responding to a question regarding Pakistan's readiness to open its airspace and airfields to Dutch aircraft active in Afghanistan, she emphasised that such cooperation would not be part of any military operations in the neighbouring country.
Pointing to the fact that the Netherlands was deploying additional troops in Afghanistan under the Nato-Isaf command, the spokesperson said Pakistan had been providing logistic support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the International Security Assistance Force in their security operations in Afghanistan.
She underlined that Pakistani facilities were not meant for military action in Afghanistan but as a transit point, adding that Isaf had been using part of the base in Karachi for its forward mounting operations to lift their supplies.
"If we have similar cooperation with the Netherlands it is in that context," she said, adding that Dutch troops in Afghanistan were in any case not involved in military operations but were there to provide security cover.
The spokesperson told a questioner that the government had no confirmation of reports that India would be stationing 12 MiG aircraft at a base in Tajikistan. However, she said Pakistan was aware of the fact that India was helping Tajikistan develop an airfield.
SAARC:
Responding to question regarding disappointment expressed by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on the role of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, Ms Aslam said that did not mean a change in the country's policy. "We want Saarc to be an effective and vibrant organisation and if progress in the context of Saarc is slow, naturally there is disappointment." She maintained that Pakistan was working with other countries to make Saarc successful.
She said Pakistan was heartened by the interest shown by a number of countries in the region and outside it to join the organisation as observers. "That shows that Saarc as an organisation is gaining credibility."
In reply to a question, she said: "The Saarc Charter says that political disputes cannot be discussed but, realistically, if Saarc were to do that perhaps it would help the member states to discuss a number of issues at this forum, which is important to all the countries." She recalled that the Forum of Eminent Persons formed to look into ways of making Saarc more effective had recommended that the association should be able to discuss political disputes and help member countries resolve them.
UAE PACT:
The spokesperson said the defence agreement signed with the United Arab Emirates last week would increase, promote and deepen cooperation in the field between the two countries. She said the agreement would cover joint military training and exercises, research, exchange of information, security in defence policy coordination and defence procurement. It would pave way for more systematic exchanges between the two military establishments, she said.
GAS PIPELINE:
Replying to a question, Ms Aslam said Pakistan and Iran were ready to develop a gas pipeline bilaterally as well. She said Pakistan was looking at both bilateral and trilateral tracks. If for some reason India was unable to join, the pipeline could be built from Iran to Pakistan, she said, adding: "However, we would be very happy if India is still part of this project." "We have no indication that India is not part of this gas pipeline anymore," she said.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/05/03/top1.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
considering Bushes Nazi past
are the AIPAC games actually
a way of seeing to it that Isreal
are finally wiped off the map
did Plame actually oversee WMD proliferation
to Iran? via the Khan network?
[was Dr Kelly murdered for his knowledge of this?]
Are the relationships between the US and Isreal that secure?
what are those neocons up to?
same as ever sectarian divide & rule
Jew Vs Arab/Muslim
------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done â€" people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) â€" an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men â€" as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical â€" divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right â€" the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united â€" and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars â€" not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" â€" as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 â€" that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his â€" and student Allen Bloom's â€" many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world â€" as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
is this for real?
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Pakistani general says he told Iran to
hit Israel in event of any attack
AP , ISLAMABAD Sunday, May 14, 2006,Page 4 - taipeitimes.com
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/05/14/2003308113
Pakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage -- Israel.
Retired General Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government "make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it -- it doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked -- that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel."
Since Beg spoke of the encounter, echoes of his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result directly from his advice isn't known.
Mohammed Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if "America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel."
The threat was disavowed the following day by Brigadier General Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's military staff, who said that it was Dehghani's "personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned."
"Make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it ... that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel." Mirza Aslam Beg, retired Pakistani general
And on Tuesday, Israel's vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that "Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."
Advice
In the interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's nuclear threat.
He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too.
But both countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it, Pakistan would retaliate against India.
"We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real deterrent," he recalled telling the Iranians.
He said he also advised them to "attempt to degrade the defense systems of Israel," harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines.
Although analysts are divided on how soon Iran might have nuclear weapons, Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them.
But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former prime minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than US$4 billion for the technology.
Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Agency Commission, said he didn't think Beg's remarks reflected official Pakistani policy. Asculai said he believed Iran learned more from Iraq than from Pakistan, recalling that as soon as the 1991 Gulf War broke out, Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, even though it wasn't in the US-led coalition fighting Iraq.
Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until 1991 and now runs his own think tank. He speaks freely and in detail about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in 2004 that A.Q. Khan, who pioneered Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The bigger picture has also changed radically. Pakistan is now a US ally in the war on terrorism, and Asculai said "Pakistani government officials have often suggested that they would be willing to have ties with Israel under certain conditions."
In the interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff. "They didn't want the technology. They asked: `Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us," Beg said.
The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1990, suspecting it was developing a nuclear bomb. In 1998, confirmation came with Pakistan's first nuclear weapons tests.
Although Beg insisted his government never gave Iran nuclear weapons, Pakistan now acknowledges that Khan sold Iran centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, though without his government's knowledge.
Confession
In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000. Khan has been pardoned by President General Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the US or the UN nuclear watchdog agency for questioning. According to Beg, Iran first sent emissaries to Pakistan in the latter years of its 1980-88 war with Iraq with a shopping list worth billions of dollars, mostly for spare parts for its air force.
It offered in return to underwrite the development plan of General Zia-ul Haq, then Pakistan's ruler.
"General Zia did not agree," he said.
Much of what Beg says cannot be independently confirmed, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Beg's version of events.
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear old friend,
Hey! What's with the Hitler comparisons?
After all didn't your Grandpappy financially
support the Hitler regime before WWII?
yours
Ahmadinejad
PS thanks for sending that nuke guy Khan
very helpful
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and FBI, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial baron for nearly eight months after the U.S. entered the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://burningbush.twentythree.us/index.htm backed up with much more
and actual pdf files of documants
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/bushnazi.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------
How CIA "protected" A.Q. Khan
Hasan Suroor - hindu.com - Aug 10, 2005
He was caught stealing designs from a Dutch uranium plant. Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers in a radio programme says the CIA saved Khan from going to prison.
LONDON: In a disclosure that is likely to embarrass American authorities, the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers has revealed how the CIA protected the controversial Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and saved him from going to prison after he was caught stealing secret designs from a Dutch uranium plant in 1975.
Mr. Lubbers, who was Minister of Economic Affairs at the time, told a Dutch radio station on Tuesday that because of pressure from the CIA no action was taken against Dr. Khan and he was quietly allowed to return to Pakistan.
"Copying secret designs"
In a 35-minute programme on Radio Argos, which describes itself as the Dutch equivalent of the BBC, Mr. Lubbers said that Dr. Khan was then working for a company called FDO and his job allowed him access to the British-German-Dutch uranium enrichment facility, Urenco, in Almelo in the Netherlands. On one of his visits, he was allegedly found "copying" and taking away secret designs from Urenco. According to Mr. Lubbers, Dr. Khan was banned from entering Urenco and the matter was reported to the police but, surprisingly, the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave the country. He said he learnt later that the CIA told the Dutch authorities not to arrest him as they wanted to follow him in order to find out more about his activities relating to Pakistan's secret nuclear programme.
Hushed up
Mr. Lubbers also said that the information was kept away from the country's Parliament, and the "scandal" became public only in 1979 thanks to a Dutch TV programme. Legal proceedings were launched against Dr. Khan and he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in absentia.
In 1985, Dr. Khan appealed against the judgement and the court ordered a retrial on grounds that proper procedures were not followed in the original trial. But, according to Mr. Lubbers, Dr. Khan was not put on trial a second time - again because of pressure from the CIA.
"A mistake"
Mr. Lubbers, who was Prime Minister then, was asked in the programme why his Government succumbed to CIA pressure. He admitted that, looking back, he believed it was a mistake but said at that time the political climate in Europe was such because of the Cold War "you had to listen to the Americans."
Gerard Legebeke, editor-in-chief of the programme in which Mr Lubbers was interviewed, told The Hindu that this was the first time such a senior Dutch political leader [Mr. Lubbers was Prime Minister for 12 years] had talked publicly about the CIA's role in protecting Dr. Khan at a time when American and European secret services were on his trail for smuggling nuclear material to build an atomic bomb for Pakistan.
He said that Dr. Khan, who had a Dutch wife, continued to "slip in and out of Holland illegally" and the secret services including the CIA knew about it.
http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/10/stories/2005081000711600.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------
kinda puts that whole Valerie Plame business into perspective
doesn't it?
It was September 2002, and then-National Security Advisor, now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was fastening on CNN perhaps the most memorable and frightening single link in the Bush regime's chain of lies propagandizing the war on Iraq. Behind her carefully planted one-liner with its grim imagery was the whole larger hoax about Saddam Hussein possessing or about to acquire weapons of mass destruction, a deception as blatant and inflammatory as claims of the Iraqi dictator's ties to Al Qaeda.
flashback: In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000. Khan has been pardoned by President General Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the US or the UN nuclear watchdog agency for questioning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Khan probe a 'closed chapter': FO hails APHC-Singh meeting
By Qudssia Akhlaque - ISLAMABAD, May 2 -2006: www.dawn.com
The Foreign Office on Tuesday declared that investigations into the Dr A.Q. Khan affair were over and as far as Pakistan was concerned the chapter was closed. "As far as we are concerned this chapter is closed," Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam stated in response to a question at a weekly news briefing.
The spokesperson asserted that the government had conducted thorough investigations into the affair and shared the information and conclusions with the International Atomic Energy Agency besides other countries, including the US. "Our cooperation has been appreciated both by the IAEA and the United States," she maintained.
In reply to a query, Ms Aslam said the Americans had not asked any questions about scientist Dr Mohammad Farooq, who was released last week. When asked if his release marked the end of Pakistan's investigations into the affair, she said: "I would presume that with Dr Farooq's release there is a closure to that."
The spokesperson said there was no question of giving the US direct access to any Pakistani scientist, saying: "We have repeatedly emphasised that, whatever information is required, questions can be forwarded to the government of Pakistan and we would get the answers. We would do the investigations and transmit this information."
JAMAAT-UD-DAWA:
Responding to a question, Ms Aslam said the government had no intention of designating the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its affiliate organisation as terrorist entities as done by the US. However, Pakistan would be legally bound to take action if they were placed on United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee's consolidated list, she said.
She said the US had approached the UNSC for designation of the organisations as terrorist outfits and for putting them on the committee's list.
"We do not put any of our entities on the terrorist list if the action is taken under the US domestic law," she said in reply to a question.
KASHMIR MEETING:
On All Parties Hurriyat Conference leaders' planned meeting with the Indian prime minister, the spokesperson said: "This is part of the trilateral engagement in which Kashmiri leaders are meeting amongst themselves and the leaders of Pakistan and India, and we welcome it."
She said Pakistan had emphasised all along that it was important to involve the Kashmiri leaders in the peace process or at least have their association with the process.
She said the killing of 34 Hindus in Doda was unfortuunate, adding: "It is a terrorist act and we condemn it." She was confident that the incident would not have any impact on the peace process.
When asked about some lobbies in the Indian establishment wanting to derail the peace process, Ms Aslam replied: "I understand that the Indian government and Indian occupied Kashmir's administration would be carrying out investigations… I'm not in the business of conspiracy theories."
"As far as we know, China did not intervene during the Kargil conflict," she said when asked about an Indian army genera's claim in this regard.
US DIALOGUE:
Ms Aslam, who participated in the inaugural session of Pakistan-US strategic dialogue in Washington last week, said various aspects of the bilateral relationship were reviewed during the meeting and both sides agreed to deepen and broaden it.
She said the foreign secretary and his US counterpart had decided that the working groups on different subjects would meet over the next two months. This, she said, would follow another round of talks between the foreign secretary and US Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns. "We expect progress once the working groups meet," she said.
In reply to a question, she said the issue of mining and fencing parts of the Afghanistan border was discussed during the meeting.
She underlined that cross-border movement was taking place from both ends, saying people from Afghanistan were also coming into Pakistan and creating trouble here.
"While we are doing all we can, we expect the other side to also initiate action and if they want they can mine the border to deter this movement," she stated.
She said the Pakistan-Afghanistan-US joint military exercises that started on Tuesday were aimed at promoting coordination among the three countries.
AIRFIELDS:
Responding to a question regarding Pakistan's readiness to open its airspace and airfields to Dutch aircraft active in Afghanistan, she emphasised that such cooperation would not be part of any military operations in the neighbouring country.
Pointing to the fact that the Netherlands was deploying additional troops in Afghanistan under the Nato-Isaf command, the spokesperson said Pakistan had been providing logistic support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the International Security Assistance Force in their security operations in Afghanistan.
She underlined that Pakistani facilities were not meant for military action in Afghanistan but as a transit point, adding that Isaf had been using part of the base in Karachi for its forward mounting operations to lift their supplies.
"If we have similar cooperation with the Netherlands it is in that context," she said, adding that Dutch troops in Afghanistan were in any case not involved in military operations but were there to provide security cover.
The spokesperson told a questioner that the government had no confirmation of reports that India would be stationing 12 MiG aircraft at a base in Tajikistan. However, she said Pakistan was aware of the fact that India was helping Tajikistan develop an airfield.
SAARC:
Responding to question regarding disappointment expressed by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on the role of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, Ms Aslam said that did not mean a change in the country's policy. "We want Saarc to be an effective and vibrant organisation and if progress in the context of Saarc is slow, naturally there is disappointment." She maintained that Pakistan was working with other countries to make Saarc successful.
She said Pakistan was heartened by the interest shown by a number of countries in the region and outside it to join the organisation as observers. "That shows that Saarc as an organisation is gaining credibility."
In reply to a question, she said: "The Saarc Charter says that political disputes cannot be discussed but, realistically, if Saarc were to do that perhaps it would help the member states to discuss a number of issues at this forum, which is important to all the countries." She recalled that the Forum of Eminent Persons formed to look into ways of making Saarc more effective had recommended that the association should be able to discuss political disputes and help member countries resolve them.
UAE PACT:
The spokesperson said the defence agreement signed with the United Arab Emirates last week would increase, promote and deepen cooperation in the field between the two countries. She said the agreement would cover joint military training and exercises, research, exchange of information, security in defence policy coordination and defence procurement. It would pave way for more systematic exchanges between the two military establishments, she said.
GAS PIPELINE:
Replying to a question, Ms Aslam said Pakistan and Iran were ready to develop a gas pipeline bilaterally as well. She said Pakistan was looking at both bilateral and trilateral tracks. If for some reason India was unable to join, the pipeline could be built from Iran to Pakistan, she said, adding: "However, we would be very happy if India is still part of this project." "We have no indication that India is not part of this gas pipeline anymore," she said.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/05/03/top1.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------
considering Bushes Nazi past
are the AIPAC games actually
a way of seeing to it that Isreal
are finally wiped off the map
did Plame actually oversee WMD proliferation
to Iran? via the Khan network?
[was Dr Kelly murdered for his knowledge of this?]
Are the relationships between the US and Isreal that secure?
what are those neocons up to?
same as ever sectarian divide & rule
Jew Vs Arab/Muslim
------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get the job done â€" people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
The "right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) â€" an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Like Wolfowitz, Shulsky is a student of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher named Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938. Strauss taught at several major universities, including Wolfowitz and Shulsky's alma mater, the University of Chicago, before his death in 1973.
Strauss is a popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include 'Weekly Standard' editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by Kristol the Younger.
Strauss' philosophy is hardly incidental to the strategy and mindset adopted by these men â€" as is obvious in Shulsky's 1999 essay titled "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)" (in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality). As Hersh notes in his article, Shulsky and his co-author Schmitt "criticize America's intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment." They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception."
Rule One: Deception
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical â€" divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right â€" the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Second Principle: Power of Religion
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.
At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism
Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united â€" and they can only be united against other people."
Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."
"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars â€" not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" â€" as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 â€" that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."
As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his â€" and student Allen Bloom's â€" many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world â€" as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/ ------------------------------------------------------------
************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
is this for real?
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Pakistani general says he told Iran to
hit Israel in event of any attack
AP , ISLAMABAD Sunday, May 14, 2006,Page 4 - taipeitimes.com
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/05/14/2003308113 Pakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage -- Israel.
Retired General Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government "make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it -- it doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked -- that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel."
Since Beg spoke of the encounter, echoes of his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result directly from his advice isn't known.
Mohammed Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if "America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel."
The threat was disavowed the following day by Brigadier General Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's military staff, who said that it was Dehghani's "personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned."
"Make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it ... that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel." Mirza Aslam Beg, retired Pakistani general
And on Tuesday, Israel's vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that "Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."
Advice
In the interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's nuclear threat.
He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too.
But both countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it, Pakistan would retaliate against India.
"We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real deterrent," he recalled telling the Iranians.
He said he also advised them to "attempt to degrade the defense systems of Israel," harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines.
Although analysts are divided on how soon Iran might have nuclear weapons, Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them.
But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former prime minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than US$4 billion for the technology.
Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Agency Commission, said he didn't think Beg's remarks reflected official Pakistani policy. Asculai said he believed Iran learned more from Iraq than from Pakistan, recalling that as soon as the 1991 Gulf War broke out, Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, even though it wasn't in the US-led coalition fighting Iraq.
Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until 1991 and now runs his own think tank. He speaks freely and in detail about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in 2004 that A.Q. Khan, who pioneered Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The bigger picture has also changed radically. Pakistan is now a US ally in the war on terrorism, and Asculai said "Pakistani government officials have often suggested that they would be willing to have ties with Israel under certain conditions."
In the interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff. "They didn't want the technology. They asked: `Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us," Beg said.
The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1990, suspecting it was developing a nuclear bomb. In 1998, confirmation came with Pakistan's first nuclear weapons tests.
Although Beg insisted his government never gave Iran nuclear weapons, Pakistan now acknowledges that Khan sold Iran centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, though without his government's knowledge.
Confession
In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000. Khan has been pardoned by President General Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the US or the UN nuclear watchdog agency for questioning. According to Beg, Iran first sent emissaries to Pakistan in the latter years of its 1980-88 war with Iraq with a shopping list worth billions of dollars, mostly for spare parts for its air force.
It offered in return to underwrite the development plan of General Zia-ul Haq, then Pakistan's ruler.
"General Zia did not agree," he said.
Much of what Beg says cannot be independently confirmed, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Beg's version of events.
------------------------------------------------------------
cw
Comments
Display the following 3 comments