Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Let's try lying, that oughtta work

  1. Mar 21, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
    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?
    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!
    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!!"
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 21, 2005 #2
    What? Politicians lie? :surprised
  4. Mar 21, 2005 #3
    We might have a perfect government system, but when it is ruled by :devil: we shall have messed up government ( im not talking directly about any one person, including Bush)
  5. Mar 21, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  6. Mar 21, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    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):

    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.


    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..... :rolleyes:
  7. Mar 21, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Jeez, nice catch, kat.
  8. Mar 21, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  9. Mar 21, 2005 #8
    Politics is a messy game. Especially when nuclear compounds and stuff are involved. That was a nice catch Kat.
  10. Mar 22, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
    This would be my first guess as to why these details might have been leaked.
  11. Mar 22, 2005 #10
    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.:redface:
  12. Mar 22, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Let's try lying, that oughtta work
  1. Lying politicians (Replies: 112)

  2. Lies or Mistakes? (Replies: 20)

  3. Lets Talk About Cuba (Replies: 57)