News Let's try lying, that oughtta work

[plover]

Let's see, we want to put pressure on North Korea concerning nuclear proliferation, but Pakistan is either complicit in or entirely responsible for the particular incident we want to use for this purpose.

Yeah, and Pakistan is our ally. They're doing such an, um, good job helping us find al-Qaeda leaders, we wouldn't want draw attention to the fact that A. Q. Khan is still running around.
​

So we'll lie about it. Lying about intelligence has always worked so well in the past, we'll do that.

In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride -- which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium -- to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.

The Bush administration's approach, intended to isolate North Korea, instead left allies increasingly doubtful as they began to learn that the briefings omitted essential details about the transaction, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said in interviews. North Korea responded to public reports last month about the briefings by withdrawing from talks with its neighbors and the United States.

Hmm, that didn't work very well, did it...

Well, isn't what we said a bit like saying that it was really the Nicaraguan Contras selling weapons to Iran back in the 80's?
​

No, of course not. Why would you say that?

The United States briefed allies on North Korea in late January and early February. Shortly afterward, administration officials, speaking to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity, said North Korea had sold uranium hexafluoride to Libya. The officials said the briefing was arranged to share the information with China, South Korea and Japan ahead of a new round of hoped-for negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program.

But in recent days, two other U.S. officials said the briefings were hastily arranged after China and South Korea indicated they were considering bolting from six-party talks on North Korea.

Why did we use this incident anyway? Don't we have any better intelligence?
​

What difference does it make? We all know Kim Jong Il is evil.

Hey, at we least we had our story straight and told China and the press the same thing!
​

Since Pakistan became a key U.S. ally in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, the administration has not held President Pervez Musharraf accountable for actions taken by Khan while he was a member of Musharraf's cabinet and in charge of nuclear cooperation for the government.

"The administration is giving Pakistan a free ride when they don't deserve it and hurting U.S. interests at the same time," said Charles L. Pritchard, who was the Bush administration's special envoy for the North Korea talks until August 2003.

"As our allies get the full picture, it doesn't help our credibility with them," he said.

Credibility? We don' need no stinkin' credibility!

Why do I get the feeling that Musharraf probably has a big poster of Bush up in his office labelled: "SUCKA!"
​

 

[polyb]

What? Politicians lie?

 

[lawtonfogle]

We might have a perfect government system, but when it is ruled by we shall have messed up government ( I am not talking directly about anyone person, including Bush)

 

[russ_watters]

Though I know that's the way diplomacy has always worked, I never understood it: people will find out eventually, so you may as well tell the whole truth.

 

[kat]

Wait a minute...
"Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity."


Pakistan and Khan have already admitted publicly that they sold nuclear components/technology to Libya and North Korea, so the whole concept that the U.S. is "protecting" Pakistan's involvement is bizarre, at best.


Yet this article from the Post claims "Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity."

here's an article from early last year saying that Pakistan sold and admits selling nuclear technology/components to Libya (among others):
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2409643


That's hardly a coverup or "concealed" as the Post claims...

Here's an even earlier article, with other players mentioned, including the independently conformable state registration of the ship involved:

Libya's decision was sealed with intercepted shipment
By Associated Press
Published January 1, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Nearly three months after the successful operation, the Bush administration confirmed on Wednesday interception of an illegal shipment of thousands of parts of uranium-enrichment equipment bound for Libya.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/01/Worldandnation/Libya_s_decision_was_.shtml


Again, notice that the actual facts, independently verifiable, don't align with what either the so-called "anonymous" sources told the Post, or what the Post "journalist" managed to print on her own. This sort of nonsensical, easily refutable propaganda from the Post isn't going to do anything but further sink the sinking credibility of the media.

Then again...maybe this is just a sign of another CIA-Bush Admin falling out...

 

[russ_watters]

Jeez, nice catch, kat.

 

[Gza]

Jeez, nice catch, kat.

 

[misskitty]

Politics is a messy game. Especially when nuclear compounds and stuff are involved. That was a nice catch Kat.

 

[plover]

Pakistan and Khan have already admitted publicly that they sold nuclear components/technology to Libya and North Korea, so the whole concept that the U.S. is "protecting" Pakistan's involvement is bizarre, at best.

This is true, and the article would indeed be bizarre if this is what it were saying. However, the substance of the article is that the role of Pakistan was elided to implicate North Korea not to protect Pakistan.

The articles you cite do not bear on the issue. The St. Petersburg Times article obviously refers to a different shipment (one containing "uranium-enrichment equipment" rather than uranium hexafluoride), while the Economist article refers to the situation in question indirectly if at all ("[t]he most sensitive materials, parts and documents have now been flown to America for safekeeping"). Thus there is no way to learn from them what may or may not have been publicly known about the situation beforehand.

The WaPo article alleges that particular details of a particular briefing concerning a particular shipment which originated in North Korea and eventually made its way to Libya were made in such a way as to imply a more direct connection between those two countries than is supported by available intelligence. The motive was apparently to create the impression that, as the article says, "North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state". Anything that was "concealed" was presumably directed to this end, not to evading well-documented facts about Pakistan.

Upon rereading, I can see that it is possible that some of the bits I wrote for the OP might be taken to imply an emphasis on Pakistan which does not exist in the article. If such is the case, what can I say? I'm not perfect. No doubt there will be a word out of place in this post too. However, a failure in my contextualization is not much of an excuse for reading the article badly.

Then again...maybe this is just a sign of another CIA-Bush Admin falling out...

This would be my first guess as to why these details might have been leaked.

 

[misskitty]

The whole thing with North Korea building an arsenal was very hush-hush in the media. I remember two years ago, when it was first mentioned, that only a fraction of people had heard about it. It wasn't a big thing until now.

Now I don't have an extensive knowledge on this issue. So I've got some questions that I'd like to ask if that's ok with everyone.

Does Lybia have their own nuclear weapons or do they just have power plants? What is the WaPo? I don't know what that abbreviation stands for. How does Pakistan fit into all this exactly?

Sorry if my asking questions is an annoyance to some of you.

 

[plover]

WaPo = Washington Post (Sorry for the confusion.)

Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program (along with other WMD programs) in December 2003, has turned all related materials and equipment over to the U.S., and as far as I know, is cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. I have no idea if they have nuclear power plants.

I'm not sure exactly what you're confused about concerning Pakistan. The article from the Economist that kat linked to seems like a reasonable summary of Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation and black marketeering. This wikipedia article on A. Q. Khan, Pakistan's head nuclear scientist (and black marketeer), might help too.