US Nuke Secrets Coverup

Treason at the State Department: A Whistleblower's Story

Pretty serious stuff. And not only are US media clamming up, the main blogstream is only now mentioning it.

I dont camp on Drudge, anymore but it seems made to order for him.

 

the links are in there
Yep... from a state official, and a few others, to Turk dealers to Pakistan and N Korea

The Jan 6 Times story

The Coverup

If this is true, and I'd bet it mostly is... PART of the reason for the coverup is to avoid further erosion of public 'faith in government.

And, if true, I'd bet a beer this will be a BIG part of the presidential campaign.

 

I dunno, Don. It does explain how AQ Khan became 'king of nukes'. It wasnt that Pakistan took a lot of public domain research stuff and developed them all on their own.. they aggregated what they got - a little here, a little there and put it all together.

While this case is only a part of explaining those sources, they may have been KEYSTONE data.

 

The timeline at the end of the article is very interesting stuff. I think I've gotta read some more background info on AQ Khan and what not to decide just how likely this is.

Will say the source is fairly low level and I have to think that if the FBI really wanted to keep her from testifying before congress and now going to the press they would have suceeded. That said it all sounds pretty plausible to me.

 

Here is a very interesting read on Kahn from the Atlantic in late 2005. This is part 1 of 2. I haven't been able to read the second one yet. It chronicles the making of Pakistan’s bomb and doesn’t yet get into Kahn's dealing. Presumably the second gets into it. It’s very long, so you'll prolly want to print it off to read the whole thing. Very entertaining though.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq-khan

That’s food for thought. Here's a guy who has sold information and nuclear-weapons components to Iran and North Korea and was negotiating with Syria. He is in the custody of Pakistan a country we aid, to the tune of 10billion a year, and a supposed ally yet we refuse, as of late 2005, to use our leverage to interrogate him. The same country with which we refuse to use our leverage to get at Bin Ladin, electing instead to let Pakistan’s own feeble efforts do. Why? Who will it implicate? What will be put at risk?

heres the second in the series;
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 14_pf.html

According to this in the Washington Post two weeks ago;

:3d nervous:

 

As much as I agree with you on this, I understand that perfectly*.. yes, even why we can't just go in and debrief Khan "secretly". But my response would be chock full of observations on 'irony' and many on here wouldn't like it much.

* doesnt mean I get it ALL, means it's obvious to me.

 

Latest I've seen on Khan in a while in the NYT's today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/world ... ref=slogin

Isn't that dandy. All the saber rattling over Iran, a war in Iraq because we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud and here is AQ Kahn, Pakistan's bomb pioneer and subsequently a bonafied black market nuke king maker, and now Pakistan a nation we fund to the tune of 10 billion a year is pondering setting him free. Staying in the mansion for the rest of his days would be a touch to harsh for old Abdul apparently.