I don't have the time to write about it at length...but you MUST read
lukery's latest on the Sibel Edmonds saga. Seems that Benazir Bhutto had promised to uncover the truth about the AQ Kahn network. Doing so would have exposed Khan's connections to various powerful players....
One of AQ Khan's American suppliers was a company called Giza Technologies in New Jersey....
Joe Trento says this of Giza:
"So the question is: who is responsible for allowing this to happen? Why wasn’t Giza exposed? Giza wasn’t exposed because it may have been used for other operations in the past. It may have been a front for the U.S intelligence service!
<...>
It’s outrageous! There’s every evidence that the United States were deeply involved, in not only helping AQ Khan set up the network but aiding Pakistan in getting a nuclear weapon."
3 comments:
Nice tip, it's a terrific read, actually quite extraordinary for how it synthesizes a bunch of otherwise disparate elements. But I'm not buying into its sad conclusion that the MSM will always keep it bottled up, the "it" being the amount of "criminal" activity blocked by the Bush WH's State Secrets. On the contrary, the article made me think that the 12/31/07 New York Times editorial was a kind of New Year's Resolution (to begin to really try to print all the news that now can fit since it's online?). No, really: the lukery list of criminal and unconstitutional grievances against the Bush administration is the same as the NYT's list. Um, has that NYT editorial been mentioned in the MSM?
Thanks AitchD.
To be clear, I wrote: "you'd think that maybe someone in the MSM, not to mention the blogosphere... would actually write something about Sibel's case."
I apologize if I distorted anything, but I tried to be careful. Sibel's case has been reported and written about, from time to time, though not the secret things, of course. How can one tell how many people know about her? I'm still trying to develop a crisp meaning for 'the MSM'. Isn't everyone, including the FCC? The Sibel business worries me because I like her, so I don't want to see her violate her oath and the law, wind up in shackles along with a huge lawyer's bill, for making known what no one in power or authority will do anything about, if the past is prologue.
Post a Comment