WHY NOW? NYT Releases Info About Pakistan's Nukes-Bushco Made Them Sit On This For 3 Yrs

[kpete]

Someone is playing a very troubling game of nuclear gotcha, here, and it's not immediately clear who is playing with whom: the White House vs. Musharraf, or both, in collusion, against the world.

US and Pakistan: Strange Coincidence of Nuke Stories
by LithiumCola
Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:10:00 PM PST

The world press is reporting that when Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte visited with Pakistani President Musharraf Saturday, urging Musharraf to ease off the "state of emergency" and schedule elections under acceptable conditions, Musharraf responded with a threat. Essentially saying, "Nice world you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it," Musharraf told Negroponte that if the Pakistani Army lost control of the government, nukes could get loose.

...................

However, there is something else going on. Just as word of this remarkable rebuke by Musharraf comes out, we read in The New York Times a new story. The United States, under a secret Bush plan, has been helping Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal for years, with a hidden-budget supply of security equipment.

The fishy thing is that the New York Times has been sitting on this story for three years, at the request of the White House. But we read this sentence in the New York Times story, now: "Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program."

............

The White House is feeding a lot of scary-scary to the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1195388275-fNQ9SGeg2HguVz5kZS3fpA adding to the power of Musharraf's threat. Details of the publication of this information are:

U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.
........
The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

-- snip --

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

much more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/17/21733/280

[rodeodance]

1. I think the WH is just trying to keep things quiet over Pakistan--they realize

it is a dangerous situation--and the people know it (US)

[Igel]

2. Well, it looks like the * folk got something right.

They quashed the story for 3 years. Then they went and did something foolish: withdrew the "hold", thereby allowing the NYT to show that their editors are every bit as smart and inter-ethnically aware as the * folk.

For example, I'm sure the following sentence, lifted from an editorial published today in a Pakistani newspaper, makes no sense to most people: Speaking of Fazlullah, it says that the "way his followers beheaded some security personnel, and the humiliation he regularly inflicts upon captured soldiers by giving them money before freeing them show he is unlikely to end insurgency by peaceful means." Note that: beheadings and freeing soldiers after giving them money are somehow similar in some sense in in dishing out humiliation, in meaning mean spirited and vindictive. Having a mullah release some soldiers unscathed, and giving them money, would probably receive kudos in the NYT.

Similarly, by publishing the story and humiliating the very people whose help they hypocritically say they want, the NYT says that it's more interested in a nuclear problem in Pakistan than in avoiding the problem (or the egotistic need see their name on a byline is more important than any moral consequences); and the * folk are probably saying that the * administration is more interested in playing CYA in the face of reports questioning how the US could do nothing when Pakistani WMDs are at risk than avoiding further risk. Or they're saying they're both so massively stupid that it's damned astonishing that they can actually manage to get crap to come out their asses.