Tuesday, August 10, 2004
In any case, Mickey Kaus has parsed the story as it has unfolded during these three days, and believes that the disclosure probably came from Pakistan. He even offers as a "paranoid kicker" the thought that "[i]t's not as if there aren't officials who sympathize with radical Islamic fundamentalism in the Pakistani intelligence service." Hey! That was my point:
Is it unreasonable to wonder whether the Pakistani official who leaked Khan's name is working with jihadists, or sympathetic to them, and knew that the American press would reveal Khan's name and the fact of his cooperation, thereby compromising his value? Al-Qaeda is obviously now aware that Khan is in custody, and will no longer reply to his emails.
And none of this lets The New York Times off the hook.
Tasty blog! Please check out my napa train wine blog.