American media woke up to the story of Pakistan momentarily, when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. But, just as quickly, Pakistan disappeared from the U.S. media radar screen. This week, the NYT led its Tuesday front page with a story both stunning and obvious to Pakistan-watchers -- that former intelligence agents of that country were now admitting that the ISI, the nation's powerful intel agency, had lost control of the jihadist militants it had long been supporting and financing. Yet the other media, which normally and almost slavishly use the NYT's news agenda to set their own, ignored the story.
Since 2001, when the administration and the media colluded in a single-minded focus on Iraq, Pakistan has lingered at the outer edges of American awareness, even though that country did indisputably meet the three criteria President Bush invoked for the invasion of Iraq (support for terrorists, invasion of a neighbor, possession of WMDs).
It's hard to keep your eye on Pakistan, I guess, when at least one network (NBC) "covered" Bhutto's killing via a correspondent just a few thousand miles away in London. But the NYT story this week made it abundantly clear that the country's intelligence establishment has, as its critics have long said, had close supportive ties with jihadist militants on its own soil as well as in Afghanistan, and that that relationship, very much like the one the U.S. had with such groups during the 1980s Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, has begun to backfire with ominous implications for the future. Better to concentrate on the polls in Nevada and tax cuts in Washington.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Now we know why BushCo let Bin Laden escape to Pakistan.
Don't let the Nuclear war with Pakistan be the proof we should have impeached.
Another article linking the Pakistani ISI with illegal nuclear trafficking
FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
Thanks for blowing off the Gaza stories.
In the old days nuclear weapons fears led to the "balance of terror": China, Russia and the U.S. The thing that kept things in balance was that no one was suicidal.
To keep our eyes on the ball(s) may have become closer to impossible, but perhaps we should at least maintain a sense of special concern when we see nuclear weapons moving closer to those who would obliterate their own people without a second thought. Suicide bombing groups come first to mind.
And there are those in sympathy with suicide bombing groups. Iran's cessation of moving towards nuclear weapons has very much the appearance of a momentary kind of thing to many who watch history.
Your post is right on the money Harry, but I don't know what it has to do with New Orleans, or Katrina.
The Joke is, that Pakistan also sold Nuke tech to north Korea and Iran, sparking their Nuke programs. They have Nukes. They Harbor Al qeada and Osama Bin Laden, They Harbor the taliban, and Mullah Omar. The taliban run raids out of the border regions in Pakistan and kill our soldiers in afgahnistan.
They reguarly war with and threaten our ally, India.
THIS NATION, PAKISTAN IS CONSIDERED OUR ALLY!!!!!!!
Now compare Iran. They have no nukes and have abandoned their program. They have not attacked another country in about 250 years. " The media distorted "threats" against Israel are really just criticisms of israels hawkish behavior towards the palestinians and its other neighbors and, since it is now clear they dont have nukes and may not ever have them, or at very least not for decades, it's very difficult to imagine how they could credibly threaten Israel, a nation with 200 to 400 nuclear missiles that could utterly annilhilate Iran when ever they want, and which, by the way, they have threatened to do many times now.
this non nucelar, non warlike nation, that is the sworn enemy of Al qeada and no friend to the taliban, is considered OUR ENEMY, While pakistan is considered our ally.
CLEARLY, Bush, Hillary, Lieberman and all of the rest of the war mongers could care less about terrorism, capturing Bin laden, stopping the taliban, crushng al qeada, or punishing nations that sell nuke tech.
They aspire to spread their war in the middle east to soften up any resistance to US and Israeli initiatives. That is why they went to iraq in the first place, a nation which, in retrospect, threateded the US about as much as cuba does. They simply want to set up bases to stage the other wars they have in mind (ie, lebanon, syria, iran)
that is why, despite how objectivly dangerous Pakistan is, there has NEVER even talk of taking any action. NONE.
Do we also not meet these same criteria, only at a much larger scale?
Florida meets the president's criteria too: harbored terrorists, trained them, and served as launching ground for 9/11.
Nuke Tallahassee?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/world/asia/19intel.html?th&emc=th
Today's NYT/CIA story so unadulteratedly CIA it's a mockery of journalism. The story goes that Al Quaeda assassinated Bhutto. There is one source for the story: CIA Director Michael Hayden (see Casper, the friendly ghost.) True, they mention a bunch of other people, but none of them support the story.
Pakistan -
Run by a dictator - Check
Harbors terrorists - Check
Has nuclear weapons - Check
Has missiles - Check
Fought numerous wars with its neighbors - Check
And for all you Michael Savage/Michell Malkin types:
Scary brown muslims - Check
Harry,
I'm aging myself, but remember when I was a poli-sci major at UCLA way back in 1982!(yikes)..and a very bright professor spoke about "pirrahia" states. Right at the top was Pakistan. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
"It's hard to keep your eye on Pakistan'. Well, if you're lazy and have to spoonfed pablum by the MSM, which picks up a new "story" as fast as it drops yesterday's "news". Use the Google news search feature. Use your imagination to ask
'How can I find out about Pakistan?' Or any other country, for that matter. Put down that copy of Time. It's mid-January 2008. How many headlines and stories (now that's a good choice of words) from early and mid-December 2007 can you recall?
"Better to concentrate on the polls in Nevada and tax cuts in Washington" Get happy!
Oh c'mon. Pakistan is mostly a bunch of mountains, no easy OIL there.
So it's not worth
it for Bush-Cheney to invade it DESPITE Pakistan's
support for terrorists, invasion of a neighbor country, possession of WMDs.
It's all about BIG OIL's future profits.
Why should we care about, what's that country, Paki-what ...Pakistan? Britney just had a meltdown, American Gladiators is back on TV and IDOL has started again!!!!
The situation in Pakistan is likely to get worse.
There is a shortage of flour in Pakistan, and the Musharraf regime is sending flour to Afghanistan {where the food situation is even worse}. They have had to deploy troops to guard flour mills.
In the meantime, according to B. Raman at:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers26%5Cpaper2552.html
the US is routing food resupply convoys to Afghanistan through the tribal areas. The Taliban have taken to attacking these, and selling the captured food to the locals at pre-shortage prices. The Pakistan army has responded by attacking the locals with helicopter gunships and artillery.
It is not hard to see how this could lead to things getting worse quickly.
B.Raman is a reputable source with a background in Indian Intelligence {RAW - Research and Analysis Wing}. So his report is probably good.
I have a blog that relies largely on Pakistani and Indian media reports on Pakistan, at:
http://www.rememberjenkinsear.blogspot.com/
which you can read if you want more on Pakistan.
Loading comments…
Posted January 18, 2008 | 02:34 PM (EST)