Musharraf and Bush—A Symbiotic Thing?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

arjun_m,

``WHAT about the minority opinion?``

*Sigh*...I`ll spell it out again...from the top...if, and this is not for certain, if this election comes down to swing voters, then Bush has a case to make to a good number of them, among other things for his policies in Iraq. They are not insignficant as far as we can tell. Come election day, we may find out that bushiepoo gets 80%, or even 50%, of the vote and then you can gloat till the cows come home. k? Till then, there are a heckuvalot of people doin their best Ricky Ricardo: ``Bushy....`Splain!``.

``You`re not aware of a lot of things..A bunch of people who call themselves evangelical don`t vote straight ticket gop..10 million white evangelicals voted for Gore in 00. ``

LOL...okay, you baited me already on this evangelical nonsense...so here goes.

Gore got a good chunk of the `evangelical`/fundementalist vote. So did Jimmy Carter. So what? Most of the time, and it is expected to be this way this time around, Evangelicals (and other similar bubba types) are expected to vote for Bush.

Needless to say, despite Gore and Carter, evangelicals and those like them tend to vote Republican...that doesn`t mean all of the vote...it means the majority...and that`s all that counts, right? So I reckon we can take that evangelical MINORITY and just fuggetaboutem.


``Watching a preacher on TV gives you an insight into voting patters how?``

No, it tells us about how his followers feel about Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. And it is a VERY important issue to them. This issue shouldn`t factor in an election strongly, since neither party will ever speak out against Israel. Wanna guess why? Needless to say, the point (you very good at ignoring them) is that Israel is a very, very important issue to evangelicals and their likes.

``but anything the jewish lobby does is evil?``

LOL...dude, you are so seriously paranoid. I merely was pointing out the relaiton between the two...that`s all...quite flippantly too. THe point was that these kind of whack-jobs who lust after the sacred cow of Israel are like, if not themselves, the type who back Bush no matter what...and BOTH those people are hopeless morons...imho of course...

``Let`s face it....Your only problem with the undeniable influence of the jewish lobby is that they succeeded where you fail....If you had the same kind of power and influence, you`d be bragging about it..``

LOL, not if the consequences were the same. I would be ashamed of it...as many Jews are btw.

``Huh? And that`s indicative of a conspiracy how? So evangelicals have influence in this white house....but it`s ridiculous to suggest that the vast number of evangelicals vote on that issue.. ``

LOL, again...dude...you are the one who called my suggestion that there is a relationship between pro-zionist Jews and Evangelicals an Islamist conspiracy theory...I merely pointed out that it`s not some left-field idea, but in fact something that is out in the open. No, evangelicals don`t vote solely on that issue...no one claimed that evangelicals (or bubba-bushies in general) vote for geopoltical concerns only...but it is a very dear issue to a good number of them.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63944-2004Sep30.html

Washington Post
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A10

Few Factual Errors, but Truth Got Stretched at Times
By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus

..... In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: ``Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.`` He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan.

But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. Yesterday, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan. .....

---

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0409300188sep30,1,3209937.story

Chicago Tribune
September 30, 2004

EDITORIAL
Squeezing a nuclear outlaw

The hunt for Osama bin Laden was Topic 1 last week when Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf met with President Bush at the White House. The two leaders discussed other things, including Musharraf`s efforts to retain his post as chief of the army. But apparently one thing that failed to rank high on the agenda was the threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons.

To be specific, Bush reportedly didn`t even try to persuade Musharraf to allow U.S. or International Atomic Energy Agency officials a crack at interviewing Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan`s nuclear program and one of the world`s most brazen nuclear profiteers.

Earlier this year, Khan`s underground nuclear bazaar--dubbed the ``nuclear Wal-Mart`` by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei--was uncloaked, solving the mystery of how North Korea, Iran and Libya acquired so much nuclear technology so fast. The answer: Khan`s network sold it to them.

Khan, revered in his homeland as the father of the Pakistan bomb, confessed and was instantly pardoned by Musharraf. The Pakistan president apparently feared that his grip on power could be undermined by a long investigation and trial of a national hero. Musharraf insisted that Khan acted without government knowledge, a claim that is difficult if not impossible to believe.

At the time of Khan`s confession, ElBaradei raised alarms, saying Khan was ``the tip of an iceberg`` in an illicit nuclear supply network with connections in many countries. ``We need to know who supplied what, when, to whom,`` ElBaradei said.

Some eight months later, though, no one has those answers because Pakistan has refused to make Khan available to outside investigators, either from the U.S. or the IAEA. The United States, fearing that more pressure could destabilize a crucial ally in the war on terror, hasn`t pressed the case.

That is a colossal mistake that could have devastating repercussions. Some American intelligence officials reportedly suspect that Pakistan is withholding information that may be embarrassing or that it is no longer pushing Khan to spill all his secrets. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Musharraf asserted that the United States had never asked to question Khan. If that`s true, the reason is transparent: They knew the request would be rejected. Musharraf said as much. If American officials had asked, he said, ``we wouldn`t let them,`` because ``that would show a lack of trust in ourselves. I mean, we must trust our own agencies.``

But how much trust can the U.S. and the rest of the world have in a regime that so quickly pardons a nuclear outlaw? How much trust can there be for a regime that denies any of its officials--even in its most powerful institution, the army--knew anything about Khan`s dealings?

The world may never know exactly who bought from Khan`s network. And that is intolerable.

Musharraf said he was certain that Khan`s network had been shut down. But Musharraf also admitted that he could not be sure that Pakistani investigators had unearthed all the customers and transactions of the network stretching back probably over a decade or more. David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector, says Pakistan may not push Khan too hard because that could expose the illicit networks that the country still uses to buy nuclear technology.

Iran is threatening to go nuclear. North Korea has an active nuclear weapons program. Both were fed by Khan`s network. Either of those countries could potentially become a source of nuclear materials or weapons for Al Qaeda, which has declared its intent to acquire and use nuclear weapons. And others may be harboring nuclear ambitions. In July, the Associated Press reported Syria and Saudi Arabia were being investigated as possible Khan network clients.

If the world is to avert more nasty surprises, the Khan network must be fully exposed and completely unraveled.

Bush can`t let Musharraf off the hook. International authorities need to know everything Khan knows. Without direct access to Khan, the world can have little confidence that his entire network is being rolled up, that black marketers across the world are being arrested and brought to justice. In many ways, that`s as crucial to the war on terror as finding bin Laden.

---