posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:13 PM
Yet you say I'm in denial?
Again, Kerry had knowledge of Pakistani nuke desires, of arms for hostages, of the incursions against Latin American democracy orchestrated by Otto
Reich, and probably the Loch Ness monster....your point? All the bluster& grab at conspiratorial thoughts on Kerry's part is not going to
substantiate your line "Kerry is a traitor".
Another thing, you're of the mindset that the Bush Administration had made the US safer from nuke attack!?!
You do know that Bush has given full diplomatic acknowledgement to Pakistan - a country that is lead by a military dictator who usurped power and blew
up the equivalent of Congress in India - killing there Senators? President Musharaff also has a good friend in Dr. A.q Kahn, also known as the Father
of Nuke bomb making, who the Bush administration dropped a hunt for at Musharaff's request....even though for the past couple of year the good Dr.
has been selling nuke bomb making schematics to all with the money, including terror cells and states.
Bush Kahn-Gate In A Nutshell
In 2001 when the BBC and The Guardian reported that the BushAdmin thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Kahn, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb
who has been discovered to have been selling nuclear secrets to rogue nations throughout the world, Noam Chomsky asked, "Why wasn't this all over US
papers?" The "CIA and other agents told BBC they could not investigate the spread of 'Islamic Bombs' through Pakistan because funding appeared to
originate in Saudi Arabia," writes Greg Palast.
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh recently reported that "past and present military and intelligence officials" told him that the U.S. allowed
Pakistan to pardon Kahn if the U.S. were allowed to move freely in northwest Pakistan in a major search for Bin Laden. Pakistan's President Musharraf
offered tribal help in capturing Bin Laden, but he claimed he only learned from the U.S. about detailed Kahn black market sales of nuke materials in
October: "If they knew earlier, they should have told us," he said.
Hersh reports that according to "a Bush Administration intelligence officer,"We had every opportunity to put a stop to the A. Q. Kahn network 15
years ago." The Guardian has reported that the BushAdmin has been aware of Kahn's dealings since it has been in office. Hersh writes, "politicians,
diplomats, and nuclear experts dismissed the Khan confession and the Musharraf pardon with expressions of scorn and disbelief. For two decades,
journalists and American and European intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani intelligence service, the I.S.I. (Inter-Service
Intelligence), to nuclear-technology transfers, and it was hard to credit the idea that the government Khan served had been oblivious." Other
accounts reach the same conclusion. This morning the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff quotes "experts" as saying the Bush-Musharraf quid-pro-quo
came about because Bush wants to capture Bin Laden before the November election to strengthen his chances of winning. If this is so, we've come full
circle in three years. If we were to believe these reports, throughout its tenure the Bush Administration has its political goals as a top priority,
rather than preventing nuclear proliferation.
"Robert Gallucci," writes Hersh, "a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service,
calls A. Q. Khan 'the Johnny Appleseed' of the nuclear-arms race....Gallucci: 'The scariest thing about all this [is] that Pakistan could work with
the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. Theres nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear
weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan...' Gallucci went on, 'We havent been this vulnerable since the British
burned Washington in 1814.