Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Follow up on the Khan disclosure
For the last three days the blogosphere has been trying to figure out whether the disclosure that Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan was cooperating with investigators is the fault of the Bush Administration, the Pakistanis, or The New York Times. Leftist bloggers are screaming about the negligence of the Bush White House, and rightist bloggers are at best annoyed. My own post on the topic is here.
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:
And none of this lets The New York Times off the hook.
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.
0 Comments:
