Jang/GEO TV Supports Israeli Agent Mansoor Ijaz.

Pakistan is one of those unfortunate countries where the Sanctimonious Intellectuals discuss the blame on speculations and assumptions even if it is at the cost of the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Differring with PPP or any other government is one thing and putting country's fate at the stake for settling some political score is quite another and that is the usual story with the Jang Group of newspaper and their Journalists/TV Anchors particularly Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick and Ansar Abbasi despite knowing an established fact (with reference, history and footage) that Mansoor Ijaz and his Neocon Lobby had destroyed Iraq by raising False Alarm of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Mansoor Ijaz is exactly doing the same again and Jang Group of Newspapers is part and parrcel in this ugly game. During a TV Show of GEO TV "Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath dated 18 Nov 2011" and earlier on Bolta Pakistan of AAJ TV dated 16 Nov 2011 the resident editor of The News International, Mr. Mohammad Malick opined that raising objection on Mansoor Ijaz' credibility is of no use! Very well as Mr. Malick suggest we should apply Mansoor Ijaz "Rant" as a cardinal truth and Mr. Mohammad Malick should plead case against Pakistan in the world community particularly in UN by quoting from Mr. Mansoor Ijaz "Excellent Pieces" on Pakistan, and particularly Mansoor's Lie on WMD in Iraq, let us proceed but before proceeding to the detailed background of this Neocon War Monger i.e. Mansoor Ijaz, we must keep one thing in mind that Mohammad Malick (Resident Editor, The News International) also has several blot on his character e.g. Muhammad Malick (List of journalists given plots in Islamabad Published: November 1, 2010http://tribune.com.pk/story/70940/list-of-journalists-given-plots-in-islamabad/ Journalist Corruption Scandal – Mohammad Malick JUNE 3, 2009http://pkpolitics.com/2009/06/03/journalist-corruption-scandal-mohammad-malick/.

Mansoor Ijaz Poisonous Propaganda Against Pakistan Army (FOX NEWS May 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQh90sH9CgU

Mansoor Ijaz is against Pakistan Nuclear Deterrence. (Fox News 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtRLTrEg-aE

Mansoor Ijaz is Imran Khan's Friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8iOlscVK1I

Ijaz is the same person who called for declaring the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) a terrorist organisation, Haqqani was quoted as telling the president. A few days later, the same person then reportedly met the head of ISI Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, Haqqani reportedly added. “What does this indicate?” he was quoted as rhetorically asking the president. Haqqani, sources added, also referred to a statement of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chief Imran Khan on October 30, where he was implicated in the scandal for the first time. “I was summoned on November 15 … how could Imran know about it on October 30,” Haqqani was quoted as saying. REFERENCE: Memogate: Adamant ambassador set to face troika By Kamran Yousaf Published: November 21, 2011 http://tribune.com.pk/story/295132/memogate-adamant-ambassador-set-to-face-troika/

Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick, and Ansar Abbasi have paid quite an attention to the statements of Admiral R. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta ! Very well if Admiral (R) Michael Mullen's statement is a cardinal truth then following Statement should also be accepted as a Cardinal Truth and Immediate Action/Specail TV Program on GEO TV should be started forthwith.

"QUOTE"

The Obama administration has sharply warned Pakistan that it must cut ties with a leading Taliban group based in the tribal region along the Afghan border and help eliminate its leaders, according to officials from both countries. In what amounts to an ultimatum, administration officials have indicated that the United States will act unilaterally if Pakistan does not comply. The message, delivered in high-level meetings and public statements over the past several days, reflects the belief of a growing number of senior administration officials that a years-long strategy of using persuasion and military assistance to influence Pakistani behavior has been ineffective. White House officials and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta are said to be adamant in their determination to change the approach, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal administration deliberations. Although he declined to provide details, Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that “we are going to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our forces” in Afghanistan from attacks by the Haqqani network, which has had a long relationship with Pakistan’s intelligence service. “We’ve continued to state that this cannot happen,” Panetta said of the Haqqani network strikes, including a Sept. 13 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. As Panetta spoke, new CIA Director David H. Petraeus was holding an unpublicized private meeting in Washington with his Pakistani counterpart, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who met with Pakistan’s army chief in Madrid on Friday, said that the “proxy connection” between Pakistani intelligence and the Haqqani network was the focus of those discussions. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is among a minority of administration officials still willing to express public sympathy for Pakistan’s weak civilian leaders as they face a growing threat from domestic terrorism and the politically powerful military. But during a 31 / 2-hour meeting in New York on Sunday with her Pakistani counterpart, she warned that Pakistan is fast losing friends in Washington, according to one official deeply familiar with the session. Clinton left the meeting with Pakistan’s assurance that “they recognize that these people are threats to Pakistan as well, and that no one should think that their relationship with the Haqqanis was more important than their relationship with the United States,” a senior administration official said. But another administration official emphasized the severity of the U.S. officials’ warning. “We are expressing the firm conviction that things have to change . . . in Miranshah and in Islamabad, as well,” this official said. Miranshah is the main population center in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region, where the Haqqani leadership is based. CIA drone attacks elsewhere in the region have avoided the city for fear of civilian casualties. REFERENCE: U.S. sharpens warning to Pakistan By Karen DeYoung, Published: September 20 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sharpens-warning-to-pakistan/2011/09/20/gIQAdqlNjK_story.html

"UNQUOTE"

Mansoor Ijaz's Partner Ex CIA Chief James Woolsey on War on Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrgjqOa8A48

North Korea's curious brand of nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail will become a recurring nightmare for the United States and its allies in the region unless a longer-term policy of preemptive containment is implemented to prevent Pyongyang from obtaining the materials to develop nuclear weapons. The current spate of diplomacy may be useful -- perhaps even successful -- in managing the short-term fallout from Kim Jong Il's decision to restart his nuclear reactors and pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But such well-intentioned efforts can't quash the North Korean leader's long-term nuclear ambitions. They also put Washington in the awkward position of being compelled by its friends to engage with a regime whose repudiation of every international norm for state behavior offers no basis for engagement. As the U.S. proceeds, it must avoid anything that appears like negotiating with a terrorist regime. At the other end of the policy spectrum, preemptive military solutions like attacking North Korea's nuclear or missile installations could well cause Pyongyang to retaliate against Japan and South Korea with a blitzkrieg of troops and missiles. And threatening Kim's nonexistent economy with further sanctions is little more than bluster. A new approach is needed to adequately address the North Korean threat. Japan, Australia and South Korea are currently engaged in diplomacy with Pyongyang. They should, in their talks, insist on the near-term removal of nuclear stockpiles as a prerequisite for food and fuel that would be provided for nonnuclear electricity production. Russian natural gas from deposits near the Korean peninsula could replace any need for nuclear power, while also giving Moscow an incentive to stand firm against North Korean nuclear actvities. At the same time, a U.S.-led alliance needs to find ways of preventing materials necessary to weapons production from getting to North Korea. This would require firm commitments from China -- and, perhaps more important, Pakistan -- to stop providing Pyongyang with nuclear components, particularly the gas centrifuges that form the heart of uranium enrichment plants and the ring magnets that are vital to centrifuge function. Bomb designs, particularly the specialized bomb casings needed to house highly radioactive uranium cores and spherical implosion trigger devices needed for detonation, must also be stopped at the source. Last month's sale by China of 20 tons of tributyl phosphate to North Korean agents, as reported in the press, demonstrates the magnitude of the problem. This is a key chemical needed to extract plutonium from depleted uranium fuel rods in a process known as "purex." The Chinese shipment was enough to extract plutonium for four to five bombs from the approximately 8,000 spent fuel rods North Korea has. Efforts must be directed toward preventing any more of the chemicals needed to separate plutonium from depleted uranium fuel rods from reaching North Korean plants. Plutonium reprocessing would allow the North Koreans to miniaturize nuclear cores for missile warheads -- or worse, to shape them into small tactical weapons for sale to terrorists on the black market. If Beijing continues to enable Pyongyang's plutonium separation, it must also accept that such cooperation could spark a decision by Japan or South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. More troubling still is the specter of Pakistani cooperation with North Korea. Islamabad vehemently denies having provided North Korea with any nuclear assistance in the past, but mounting intelligence data and forensic evidence suggest otherwise. The same South Korean intelligence report that exposed the existence of the uranium enrichment facility that sparked the U.S. confrontation with North Korea last fall also reportedly noted remarkable similarities between centrifuge components bought by North Korea for its plant and those known to be used by Pakistan at its enrichment facilities. Press reports have repeatedly documented how a North Korean missile proliferation company, Changgwang Sinyong Corp. (CSC), provided missile parts to Pakistan for its Shaheen and Ghauri missiles, although the company has been sanctioned by the U.S. State Department only for its sale of missile components to Yemen and Iran. CSC's chief procurement officer in Islamabad during the late 1990s, Kang Thae Yun, doubled as economic counselor at Pyongyang's Islamabad embassy. His wife, Kim Sa Nae, was mysteriously gunned down in Islamabad on June 7, 1998, a week after Pakistan successfully detonated five nuclear devices based largely on Chinese designs. According to a senior Pakistani police source who filed the murder report (which was later leaked to Western journalists and published in November 1998), Kim was shot by North Korean agents working at Pakistan's top-secret nuclear facility, the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta, who feared she was going to defect and provide Western intelligence agencies with hard evidence of Pakistan's assistance to North Korea in developing its fledgling nuclear program. Islamabad officially maintains that the murder stemmed from a kidnapping attempt gone awry. But such nuclear shenanigans -- which admittedly happened under a different regime at a time when U.S.-Pakistan relations were severely strained -- must be curtailed. The Bush administration must hold its ally to answer, even if privately, about the exact extent and nature of assistance Islamabad provided Pyongyang in its uranium enrichment and bomb-making facilities. Washington should insist, at a minimum, that further U.S. financial aid be tied to verifiable and tangible guarantees that Pakistani nuclear materials, bomb-making and enrichment technology components, and scientists, both active and retired, are not made available to other countries -- officially or unofficially. Pyongyang's nuclear bluff cannot be called until Washington persuades Beijing and Islamabad that nuclear cooperation with North Korea is reckless and cannot be tolerated. Interrupting the supply of nuclear technology, bomb-making materials and extraction chemicals is the best way to curtail North Korea's habitual policy of nuclear blackmail. REFERENCE: Cut Supply Lines that Fuel Pyongyang's Nuclear Dreams by Mansoor Ijaz and R. James Woolsey Los Angeles Times January 12, 2003 http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/ncases.html

Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 1

As I noted yesterday, Josh Rogin has been doing outstanding work on the issue now rocking Pakistan, a memo purportedly sent from the highest levels of the Pakistani civilian government seeking US support for shutting down the branch of Pakistan’s ISI that deals with the Taliban and the Haqqani Network and weakening Pakistan’s military. Now that Rogin has confirmed existence of the memo (and today has even provided a copy of it), I’d like to return to the figure who got this whole scandal started, Mansoor Ijaz. Here is information Rogin dug up regarding Mansoor Ijaz back on November 8, when Michael Mullen was still denying existence of the memo: This is only the latest time that Ijaz has raised controversy concerning his alleged role as a secret international diplomat. In 1996, he was accused of trying to extort money from the Pakistani government in exchange for delivering votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on a Pakistan-related trade provision. Ijaz, who runs the firm Crescent Investment Management LLC in New York, has been an interlocutor between U.S. officials and foreign government for years, amid constant accusations of financial conflicts of interest. He reportedly arranged meetings between U.S. officials and former Pakistani Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. He also reportedly gave over $1 million to Democratic politicians in the 1990s and attended Christmas events at former President Bill Clinton‘s White House. Ijaz has ties to former CIA Director James Woolsey and his investment firm partner is Reagan administration official James Alan Abrahamson. In the mid-1990s, Ijaz traveled to Sudan several times and claimed to be relaying messages from the Sudanese regime to the Clinton administration regarding intelligence on bin Laden, who was living there at the time. Ijaz has claimed that his work gave the United States a chance to kill the al Qaeda leader but that the Clinton administration dropped the ball. National Security AdvisorSandy Berger, who served under Clinton, has called Ijaz’s allegations “ludicrous and irresponsible.” Those are some pretty damning allegations. Before moving to the detail from the source Rogin linked on Ijaz’s attempt to get $15 million from Pakistan in return for securing a positive vote in the House of Representatives for the Brown Amendment back in 1995, it’s worth getting the context for this bill. From the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Continue reading → REFERENCE: The Checkered Neocon History of Mansoor Ijaz, Instigator of Pakistan’s “Memogate” Posted on November 18, 2011 by Jim White  http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/18/the-checkered-neocon-history-of-mansoor-ijaz-instigator-of-pakistans-memogate/#more-23113

Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 2

Enter Daniel Pearl: We may never know the true motivation that set Daniel Pearl on a quest that would ultimately lead to his grisly demise. However, thanks to an invaluable article by Robert Sam Anson in the August 2002 issue of Vanity Fair, we do know which key player was involved in guiding him on his quest for knowledge. Mansoor Ijaz is not a man widely known outside his circle, but his intimate connections run deep in Washington's power circles. A counter-terror expert, a member of the Council On Foreign Relations, a Fox News analyst, as well as a business partner of former CIA Director James Woolsey, Ijaz is represented by the public relations firm of Benador Associates, whose client list reads like a "who's who" of the propaganda heavy-hitters who were pushing for a war in Iraq - Richard Perle (former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board), Woolsey (also a member of the Defense Policy Board), Iraqi scientist ( and chronicler of Saddam's weapons program) Khidir Khamza, former Washington Times publisher (and UPI chief) Arnaud De Borchgrave, anti-Saddam author Laurie Mylroie, Harvard professor/CIA associate Richard Pipes (mentor of Mylroie, and father of Daniel Pipes), and Frank Gaffney, president of the hard-right Center For Security Policy (of which Perle and Woolsey are on the advisory council). The interlocking relationships of members of this clique - or "crew", in the parlance of organized crime - is indeed a testament to the power of networking, yet the astonishing scope of their most recent activities - both in the lead-up to and aftermath of 9/11 - is perhaps indicative of a more covertly sinister tint in the psychological makeup of some members of the political "power elite." Ijaz's frequent writing partner, James Woolsey, for example, was one of just 17 participants in a July 2001 bio-warfare exercise dubbed "Dark Winter," a simulation of a mass smallpox attack, co-sponsored by the ANSER Institute of Homeland Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Among the other participants was Benador client Arnaud De Borchgrave and New York Times journalist Judith Miller, who had co-authored a book with Benador client Mylroie in the early '90's. Mylroie's book - an attempt at linking Iraq to 9/11 - was released just weeks after September 11 with a foreword written by James Woolsey. Around the same time, Judith Miller had just launched her own well-publicized book on the germ warfare threat - within a week or two of her own well-publicized role as one of the very few recipients of an "anthrax" mailing (which turned out not to be anthrax). As for the anthrax threat, a major principal in the company that holds the exclusive license for the anthrax vaccine is former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Crowe, whose business associate in the consulting firm Global Options is - you guessed it - James Woolsey. As for the present smallpox threat, the man charged with overseeing President Bush's mass vaccination policy was another "Dark Winter" alumnus, Jerry Hauer. Hauer, a former director of Kroll Associates - the security firm at the helm when the Twin Towers fell - is also the man who personally pulled strings in order to get senior FBI official John O'Neill his job as head of security at the World Trade Center. O'Neill, who had left a 30-year career in the FBI only two weeks before September 11, had perished in the rubble of the Twin Towers on his very first day at the post. Incidentally, O'Neill just happened to have been the main FBI official in charge of investigating all things bin Laden. REFERENCE: There's Something About Omar: Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg www.globalresearch.ca , 21 October 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 3

With the path breaking ceasefire offer by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the political environment surrounding the Kashmir issue has changed. The American angle in this development is often mentioned, without much clarification as to what exactly that entailed. It appears that Washington has acted, at the least, as a source of ideas, as a facilitator and perhaps even as an applier of pressure on the parties involved. One of the people apparently batting for the American side is Musawer Mansoor Ijaz, an American-born businessman and policy advisor of Pakistani origin. He visited Kashmir discreetly in recent months and is one of the people whose ideas on the Kashmir issue seems to filter through to President Bill Clinton. Ijaz can be expected to continue to play an intriguing, if somewhat mysterious, role within the US-India-Pakistan triangle. One can also expect that he may move on to greater prominence through this issue. So who is Mansoor Ijaz? In attempts to understand a person, it is a good idea – as Socrates once said – to begin at the beginning. In the case of Mansoor Ijaz, that would have to be with his parents Mujaddid and Lubna. Both were highly intelligent and, apparently, intense individuals with an inclination towards the sciences, in particular physics. Mujaddid was regarded a very demanding personality, while his wife Lubna – who it is said had a Mughal heritage – was a driven personality who did not flinch from breaching societal and traditional barriers. Their story, and more importantly that of their son, for all intents and purposes begins in 1960 when Mujaddid and Lubna emigrated to the USA. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Aapas ki baat - 21st november 2011 part 4

It is said that Mujaddid played a role in Pakistan's early nuclear programme. What role he could have played is unclear, because at the time of his emigration to the US, there was no indication that Pakistan had a nuclear programme of any sophistication. More likely, however, is that Mujaddid may have been involved at a conceptual/advisory level and in preliminary developments in Pakistan's clandestine nuclear programme initially. In view of his expertise, he probably also kept close links from the US with his old schoolmates and teachers who subsequently went on to occupy very high positions in the Pakistani nuclear establishment. As such, he may have been an important source of offshore nuclear technical expertise for Pakistan. Ironically, Mansoor, may be playing a similar role of information and expertise provider (on Pakistan's nuclear programme) for the country of his birth, the USA. But we get ahead of ourselves. After Mujaddid arrived in the US, he settled initially in Florida. Mansoor was born in Tallahassee (FL) in August 1961. But in the following years the family soon moved on to the Blue Ridge Mountains area of Virginia, where Mujaddid was to teach nuclear physics at Virginia Tech, a position he held for 26 years. Meanwhile, Lubna started a doctorate at Virginia Tech and became the first woman PhD in solar physics at the institution. Simultaneously, the pater familias branched into another line of work: farming & real estate. Mujaddid accumulated a small fortune by buying, developing and selling land. As he grew wealthier, he sponsored more than 100 Muslim students to study in the US and helped 50 relatives relocate to America. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 1

The Ijaz family lived on their farm, and in some ways Mansoor and his brother Farouk had what might be considered an idyllic childhood – going to school, playing ball, learning the things American children learn, and then returning to the farm where he is said to have "milked Holsteins and pitched hay". Mujaddid and Lubna, however, were not "social rebels". He was a reserved, stoic and reverent man with a deep love for the land he left behind. He and Lubna ensured that their children were brought up with a good understanding of Pakistani and Islamic traditions. Mansoor and Farouk started at childhood to offer daily prayers facing Mecca. Mansoor still does his daily religious duties. This picture would not be wholly American without at least one example of the racism Mansoor and his brother experienced as children. At their elementary school in Blacksburg (VA), they were the only dark-skinned children and were the subject of taunts because of their colour. In high school in nearby Christiansburg, Mansoor who was small in stature (a "deficiency" compounding the colour problem) was beaten by bullies. This may partly explain why Mansoor took to sports. He had a particular interest in tennis and weightlifting. But his parents, typically sub-continental, were not amused. They saw it as a distraction from academic activities. Mansoor has been quoted as saying: "I would beg to play tennis. My father would ask about my grades". Nevertheless, Mansoor had by then begun to demonstrate his personal smarts as well as qualities of character. He enrolled in the University of Virginia, tutoring the basketball team to help pay his tuition, and while at the university he also earned All-American weightlifting status. At the university he preferred to study law, but was nudged in the direction of architecture by an adviser. In his junior year, his father suggested that he shift to physics. Thus he graduated with a bachelor's degree in nuclear physics from the University of Virginia in 1983. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 2

Once again, the sub-continental cultural heritage kicked in and the time for an arranged marriage was nigh. So, in 1983, his family fixed a spouse for him in the Islamic tradition and Mansoor wed Yasmine (who duly proceeded to issue two offspring). In the meantime, Mansoor pursued further studies at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, where he received a degree in mechanical engineering in 1985. He had trained as a neuro-mechanical engineer under a fellowship granted by the joint MIT-Harvard Medical School Medical Engineering Program. Now the following segment of Mansoor's life is quite vague. It appears he continued postgraduate work at MIT, because according to one of the sources "three and one half years into his graduate studies" at MIT, Mansoor was called home to Virginia for family reasons. His parents, who had lived in the early 1980s in Saudi Arabia (for reasons unknown), had returned to Virginia. But family finances were squeezed, apparently because Mujaddid did not have a clue about basic economics (i.e. interest rates & inflation), which seems rather odd for someone who can understand nuclear physics. In any event, the situation was a turning point for Mansoor, for Mujaddid ordered him to New York to learn the ropes on Wall Street. A new phase of Mansoor's life commenced. His took a job at Van Eck Associates, a mutual fund company. His first project with them was to analyse nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union. His models of how world geo-political events affected market conditions proved profitable for Van Eck, and he was soon entrusted to run a large mutual fund that anticipated changes in foreign policy. To build his models, Mansoor drew extensively on his experience at MIT. Having learned the ropes, Mansoor wasted no time in starting his own company: Crescent Investment Management, located on Lexington Avenue, in 1991. The company's logo, designed by his father Mujaddid, is the Islamic crescent moon recognised worldwide. (It is also the dominant motif on the flag of Pakistan). Mansoor began traveling extensively, visiting Pakistan and several Middle East countries seeking business deals. He built up an impressive network of contacts. At Crescent, he once again put his MIT analytical modelling experience to good use and developed the company's proprietary currency and interest rate risk management systems known as CARAT, TRACK, RMU and CALOP. Crescent rapidly became a successful company, with a $2.7 billion investment portfolio by the mid-1990s, according to Mansoor. For Mansoor, 1992 was a watershed year. It was marked by personal tragedy and change, when his father died of brain and lung cancer. In a gesture mixed with symbolism and drama, Mujaddid had left a lasting message for his son – giving his dying instructions on videotape. In the tape, Mujaddid indicated that – since Mansoor had shown his capability to adapt to changes – he should dedicate himself to helping the Islamic world. Mansoor subsequently said that his father had passed the baton (given Mujaddid's expertise, outsiders may wonder what exactly the baton was), noting: "There was always a cultural gap between us…His death gave me a conscience". Although the father-son relationship had not been one of overtly displayed affection, not unlike most sub-continental father-son relationships, Ijaz had been a dutiful son and had always wished to please his father. It is no leap of faith therefore, to assume that his father's final dramatic gesture had a lasting impact on Mansoor. It is equally safe to assume that Mansoor was already on the radar of the American intelligence agencies because of his obvious brilliance, his parentage, his business skills and his connections. No doubt, they also noticed his growing contributions to the Democratic Party. Indeed, he was singled out in 1994 by the Democratic National Committee which had by then recognised that he was more than just a source of funds. In May 1994, one Ari Swiller (one strand in Mansoor's Jewish links), who has been described as being "in charge of $100,000 donations" for the Democrats, sent a one-page memo fax to Maria Haley, a director of the US Eximbank who has found jobs for many Asian-Americans in the Clinton Administration. According to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (ADG) of 28 April 1997, the memo claims that Mansoor is "very interested in using his background in nuclear physics", and accompanies a biographical sketch listing his background and contacts. Subsequently, Haley and Swiller have clammed up. Mansoor has been quoted as saying he does not know anything about the fax, adding (with good reason): "Why would I want a job with the government? I make a hell of lot more money where I am". REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 3

The biographical sketch, nonetheless, emphasises Mansoor's knowledge about the nuclear establishment in Pakistan. According to ADG, the memo says that Mujaddid's "closest classmates and teachers in Pakistan are now in charge'' of Pakistani nuclear facilities, including the directors of the Centre for Nuclear Studies and of PINSTECH, Pakistan's leading nuclear-research facility. Further, ADG claimed that a note at the bottom of the sketch says this, "These names have been provided at the request of the DNC in order to more fully evaluate the potential of a mutual relationship.'' The note asked for strict confidentiality. Whatever the case may be, by 1995, Mansoor was hobnobbing with the Washington elite, including Clinton and his wife. By then he was also in a position to directly send letters to Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto through a high-ranking intermediary. In other words, he was in the thick of intrigues in 1995 involving the US (at re-election fund-raising time) and an "attempted coup" in Pakistan. Imagine the scene, a glamorous fund-raising dinner ($1000/plate) for the Democrats on 11 July 1995, at the home (haveli) of Pakistani cosmetics millionaire Rashid Chaudhary. Guests of honour were Vice President Albert Gore and his wife Tipper. In a gesture to symbolise long-term friendship, Gore planted a tree in his host's back yard that evening. Chaudary's wife gave Tipper a shalwar kameez, which she changed into before dinner in order to please the hosts; the objective was to raise $150,000 that night from the 150 guests. Yet the event was not about food (which was plain, catered chicken and vegetables) but about politics – both the American and sub-continental versions. And this is where Mansoor comes into the picture. He was seated at the head table, along with Chaudhary and Gore as well as Izzat Majeed, a former Saudi oil adviser and chief Executive of Alyph Ltd., a London financial consulting firm; Nancy Soderberg, then Deputy Assistant to the President for national security affairs; Alexis Herman, a former Democratic National Committee chief of staff who moved on to become head of the White House Office of Public Liaison and Clinton's nominee for secretary of labor; naturalized American Yusuf Haroon, a former Pakistani politician whose family owns the Pakistani newspaper group Dawn; and two unidentified businessmen. Just as important as who was present at the dinner was who was not: namely, Maleela Lodhi, Pakistan's then Ambassador to the United States. She had not been invited. Instead, the Bhutto government was represented by Wajid Shamzil Hassan, Pakistan's Ambassador to London. Why so? Well, intrigue was in the air. Plans of a "coup" in the making against the Bhutto government were already afloat and the White House was already aware of it. US media reports have it that Yusuf Haroon was the point man on this on the American side. His goal was to get maximum publicity coverage with the high and mighty in the US so that the credibility of the coup would be enhanced. A speech by Gore at a dinner hosted by Chaudhary at which Haroon was at the head table was just such an opportunity. (Photos were taken by Larry Glenn, a pro hired by the Democratic National Committee). But this plan collapsed, in manner similar to how the coup fizzled out some months later. Pivotal in the derailment of the plan was Mansoor, the American-born Pakistani with the "cultural gap" with his late father. He had to choose between divergent interests and outcomes, and he did. Here's how. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Aapas ki baat - 22nd november 2011 part 4

Mansoor, through his sources in Pakistan, had learned that a coup was being prepared against Bhutto. He then injected himself into the situation by doing two things: (1) informing the US government which had a pro-Bhutto stance at the time; and (2) informing Bhutto herself in a four-page letter dated June 29 and delivered to Zafar Hilaly, her National Security Adviser. The thrust of the information provided by Mansoor was as follows: Yusuf Haroon and Lt. Gen. Ali Quli Khan, then Pakistan's Chief of Military Intelligence, were plotting to oust Bhutto. According to the ADG, Mansoor said that he learned of the plot from sources inside Pakistan who were aware of his political connections in the US. In the letter to Bhutto, Mansoor recommended that she send a trusted friend to represent her at Chaudhary's dinner, namely Shamzil Hassan, the ambassador to London. Oddly enough, it appears that she may not have trusted Maleeha Lodhi, ambassador in Washington; perhaps Bhutto, a fairly shrewd judge of character, recognised that Maleeha – like her brother Amir Lodhi – would sell herself to the highest bidder (and she has done so since). One would have thought that Mansoor's interjection to save Bhutto would have earned him her eternal appreciation, but this was not to be. She dealt with the 'coup attempt' in her own way, apparently compromising Lt. Gen. Quli Khan and getting him to nail his own underlings, but that's another story.

Gore's office and the National Security Council had been forewarned by Mansoor about the coup and were in no mood to be used. Indeed, it has been reported that on the day of the dinner, Mansoor called the Vice President's office to warn his staff. At the same time, foregoing $150,000 was not an option. So, Mansoor provided an escape route by suggesting a way to subvert the plotters' plan: Gore should somehow address the coup issue when he spoke. Thus Gore gave a long speech and at the end said a coup in Pakistan against Bhutto would not be tolerated by Washington. As numerous journalists were present, the Haroon-Quli Khan plan was quashed in public – at least from the US perspective.

The question here is, what made Mansoor decide that the best course of action was to inform the US Government. He obviously knew that, having family members still in Pakistan, they would be vulnerable. He also knew that, if it came out (as it did) that he was the leaker of information, powerful people in Pakistan would gun for him (perhaps literally). On the other hand, he knew that if he did not inform the US (and if the US found out that he had known), Pak-Americans in general would be cast in a negative light. He could not be sure, in another uncertainty, that the US would believe him. Yet he took the course of informing the US, and it seems he was right; in subsequent years he has been noted wearing US presidential cufflinks and the White House has said it welcomes his views. In April 1997, the White House press spokesman (also the National Security Council press officer) David Johnson has been quoted as saying: "We found him (Mansoor) to have an interesting cultural perspective, particularly with respect to Pakistan… We've had no discussion with him about nuclear capabilities, nor negotiations, nor about code names''. The issue of "code names" came up because it was reported that Mansoor was known among circles interested in his activities as "Leo" (the star sign of his birth month August), a bit obvious perhaps but reality does not always conform either to Fleming's fantasy or to notions of bureaucratic alphanumeric efficiency. In any case, it seems Mansoor did not decide to inform the US about the coup purely on grounds of personal benefit – although that too may have been involved (as will be shown later).

The year 1995 was eventful for Mansoor in other ways. He was honored as the Endowment for Democracy's 1995 "Humanitarian of the Year" in recognition of his efforts to aid poor and disaffected people in Bosnia, South Africa, Hungary and Pakistan. The Endowment for Democracy is seen as a Jewish-controlled organisation. From late 1995, however, Mansoor became a severe critic of the Bhutto government, attacking it for corruption, etc. He said subsequently to ADG that, "We were saving democracy from the hands of military dictators, not Mrs. Bhutto as a person…When I wrote the anti-corruption pieces, I was speaking out on behalf of the poor and disaffected people of Pakistan who had no other voice to protect them from the ravages of the Bhutto regime's unforgivable conduct. There is no contradiction". This earned him her lasting enmity. Was there something more than plain old altruism to Mansoor's criticism of Bhutto? We'll never know for certain, but consider this: for what other reason was the year 1995 eventful for Pakistan? The Brown Amendment was passed that year. Indeed, from the beginning of the year the Clinton administration was lobbying for the bill with help from Chaudhary. In June 1995, as Mansoor became aware of the coup plans, the bill was a hot topic, and at the time of the Chaudhary haveli dinner in July it was being debated in the Senate. The Brown Amendment was included in a foreign appropriations bill passed by the Senate in September 1995. In the same month, Mansoor hosted a low-profile fund-raiser for Gore at his Manhattan penthouse. Twenty contributors with "blue-chip credentials'' contributed $150,000 to the Clinton-Gore Re-Election Committee, according to a Pakistani journalist present. (White Houe records show 25 guests present contributed $5,000 each). Gore promised during the dinner that the Clinton administration would devote more energy to the "South Asian situation'' in its second term. By November 1995, the Brown Amendment was passed.

After the Brown Amendment was passed, however, Mansoor's ties with Bhutto began to deteriorate fast. He began writing high profile critiques of her government for corruption. This continued through the following year. That there may be reasons beyond altruism for his views was suggested in October 1996 when Pakistani Foreign Secretary Najmuddin Shaikh said a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mansoor arguing against foreign investment in Pakistan was "infantile, vindictive and without any credibility" as well as being the result of "pique". Shaikh said Mansoor was attacking Bhutto because he could not "derive sufficient benefit" from the government. Separately 'Dawn' quoted a Pakistan Embassy spokesman in Washington as saying that Mansoor was blasting Islamabad because the embassy denied him $15 million he had demanded to secure votes in the US House of Representatives for the passage of the Brown Amendment. The spokesman said that in 1995, after the Brown Amendment had made it through the US senate and then had to be voted on by the House, Mansoor went to the embassy along with his lawyers with a proposal that smacked of a 'sting operation'. He added, "Mr. Ijaz wanted us to release $15 million for a satellite communications company R.D.D.A. which had done some work for Pakistan in 1979 for which they were not paid and they would sue the government to recover the monies. Ijaz told us that in this way you will kill two birds with one stone, one we will ensure votes in the US House for the Brown Amendment and the other the company R.D.D.A. will not sue you".

The spokesman also said that when Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi was given this proposal she saw it as a trap wherein the Pakistani government could land in bigger trouble; so she turned down Mansoor's proposal saying that "it was illegal". In the Wall Street Journal article, Mansoor implied that Lodhi used "aggressive tactics" in pushing to recoup the payments for the stalled F-16s (the focus of the Brown Amendment) after the passage of the Amendment because her brother, Amir Lodhi, was interested in the Mirage deal with France as he was the middleman. According to the 'Dawn Wire Service' of 04 October 1996, the Pakistan Embassy in Washington struck back with a press release in which it refuted Mansoor's allegations regarding the reasons for Maleeha Lodhi's eagerness to recoup the F-16 payments. Interestingly, the press release added that Mansoor had been urging Islamabad to recognize Israel. It said he had visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of the mayor of Jerusalem. The press release pointed out that in 1995 Mansoor had been given the "Humanitarian of the Year" award by a "major Jewish organization" (Endowment for Democracy – as mentioned earlier). It added further that the reasons for this award was his efforts in establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and parts of Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities there. The press release said Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who attended the award ceremony, praised Mansoor and his "philanthropist activities". Then in his speech Mansoor thanked Ambassador Kamal's wife saying "Thank you Mrs. Kamal for Dal, Roti and Kabab". Also in October 1996, Mansoor served as a Plenary Session speaker on nuclear proliferation at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco, along with General Lee Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, Nobel laureate Joseph Rotblat and others. Not surprisingly, Mansoor was not too unhappy with the departure of the Bhutto government after President Farooq Khan Leghari sacked it on charges of corruption. It must be noted, in the meantime, that allegations of financial blackmail by Mansoor had surfaced in 'Dawn' and 'Dawn Wire Service' – both owned by Yusuf Haroon, the man who paid the price for Mansoor's decision to inform the US government about the coup plot against Bhutto.

Mansoor continued to maintain a high profile in the US on matters related to Pakistan and, increasingly, Sudan. He is said to have had good links with the Nawaz Sharif administration. It has been reported (Washington Post, 29/4/97) that by the summer of 1996, Mansoor was lobbying strongly for improved US-Sudan ties; Sudan has been on the US list of terrorism-supporting states since 1993. He reportedly made In a half-dozen trips to Khartoum between July 1996 and April 1997, and met several times with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Bashir, and the country's real power – the militant Islamic leader, Speaker Hassan Al Turabi, advising them on how to soften the Clinton administration's position. According to the Post, in that time frame, Mansoor also met with senior White House and State Department officials - including Sandy Berger - to urge "constructive engagement" which would include enlisting Turabi's help in curbing international terrorists. A White House spokesman subsequently said the Mansoor had provided helpful "insight", although other officials have said they did not find his analysis "compelling". Other officials he met included Susan E. Rice, special assistant to the president for African affairs; senior officials in the State Department's African affairs office; and several senior members of Congress, including Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), ranking minority member on the House International Relations Committee, according to government sources. Mansoor also had meetings with FBI and U.S. intelligence officials. At the time, Mansoor had not registered with the Justice Department as a lobbyist for Sudan and said he had received no known compensation from the Khartoum regime. The Post said that in April 1997, Mansoor "returned from another trip to Khartoum with a letter from Bashir to Hamilton. Bashir offered in the letter to allow FBI agents unrestricted access in Sudan to determine whether the government supports international terrorists, according to a Sudanese official". Hamilton passed the letter on to the State Department and told the Post that he had met Mansoor three or four times and found him "a very bright, energetic guy" with "a lot of contacts in the Sudan". The Post also quoted Mansoor as saying: "I am of the view that Doctor Turabi (then speaker of Sudan, an Islamic radical now marginalized somewhat in Sudanese politics) has access to every single major fringe radical group on the face of the planet," Ijaz said. "Let's use him to be our bridge to all of these fringe radical groups". (This writer finds the statement by Mansoor to be debatable. Turabi, who fancies himself something of an intellectual with global pretensions (Sorbonne-educated PhD), does indeed have vast links across the spectrum of Islamist militant activity. But he is only a "moderate" within a militant spectrum. His antecedents are with the Muslim Brotherhood, and he will not hesitate to turn extremely radical if he judges the time to be right. In other words, his moderation is reserved for the right audience). On 10 June 1997, Mansoor, provided a testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on "Prohibition on Financial Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act". According to a profile appended as Exhibit B to the testimony he had also become involved in "designing, funding and implementing projects for the people of third-world countries under the direction of his private foundation, The Ijaz Group. His current projects include structuring the asset management systems for the governments of the CIS and designing models for low-income housing in poor African countries". He was also becoming highly visible in the media, with op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, BARRON's Roundtable Currency discussions, ‘CNN', etc. Mansoor by 1996/97 had begun displaying photographs in his New York office of him and Clinton, Gore, etc. Wearing his Crescent Investment hat, according to the Exhibit B profile, he had also "advised the Unity Government of President Nelson Mandela on low-income housing programs, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia on global investment programs for domestic pension plans, and President Haidar Aliev of Azerbaijan on investment of the revenues from Caspian oil reserves. He also meets regularly with the economic and political leaders of Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, the Sudan and Persian Gulf states on economic and political issues related to his investment management business". Yet his efforts with Sudan were to take a sudden turn for the worse, (at least temporarily). In summer 1997, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were hit by bombs. The culprits were judged to have received help from Sudan and Afghanistan. In August 1997, both countries were hit by the US with cruise missiles, although later it was acknowledged that the Sudanese target was perhaps wrongly identified. What was Mansoor's Sudan angle? Well, Sudan was preparing to export oil around 1997 and Mansoor wanted to place himself in a position so that Crescent would be chosen to manage some of Sudan's export income. After the Sudan developments, it did not take very long for Mansoor to raise his profile once again. In May 1998, India set off nuclear bombs, and this was followed by Pakistan within the month. Mansoor's analytical skills were much in demand by the broadcast and print media and he obliged. After the October 1999 coup in Pakistan, he was once again in high demand and his views (strongly anti-military) were well appreciated. In the meantime, Mansoor had managed to get on the prestigious Council for Foreign Relations in the US where he got involved in policy recommendations for South Asia. His background in Washington and his current position no doubt helped Mansoor in arranging a discreet visit to Jammu & Kashmir in May 2000. The fact that he did not have to go through the usual check-up formalities at Srinagar airport in Kashmir may be explained by the fact that he was accompanied and guided throughout his visit in Kashmir by officials of the Indian intelligence agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) and military officials, who no doubt have assessed his present and future value as an opinion maker and policy driver. Notes: Dawn Wire Service (October 4, 1996); Dawn Newspaper (date unavailable); Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (April 25th & 28th, 1997); Washington Post (April 29, 1997); The News online; and Exhibit B from Mansoor Ijaz's Testimony to the House of Representatives (June 10, 1997, 10:00 am, at the Rayburn House Office Building). All the information contained in this article is in the public domain. REFERENCE: Musawer Mansoor Ijaz – America's Secret Emissary JAIDEEP E. MENON BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(2) September - October 2000 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/menon.html

Credibility of Mansoor Ijaz.

WASHINGTON: Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have delivered a secret message to US officials on behalf of President Asif Ali Zardari, said on Friday that his contacts indeed had delivered that letter to the then US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen. Earlier this week, Mr Mullen’s spokesman Captain John Kirby said that the admiral had not received any letter from Mr Ijaz. On Oct 10, Mr Ijaz claimed that President Zardari had sought Washington’s help for removing the army and ISI chiefs and had assured the Obama administration that he would cut all ties to militant groups if it assisted him do so. The president allegedly made this offer in a letter he gave Mr Ijaz for personally delivering it to American leaders. But earlier this week, The Cable, a publication associated with the prestigious Foreign Policy group, published a report based on a statement by Mr Mullen’s spokesman, saying that the admiral did “not know Mr Ijaz and has no recollection of receiving any correspondence from him”. Capt Kirby also said he “cannot say definitively that correspondence did not come from him — the admiral received many missives as chairman from many people every day, some official, some not. But he does not recall one from this individual”. In an email message to Dawn, Mr Ijaz pointed out that the denial confirmed his claim. “I never said I delivered anything to Admiral Mullen. What I wrote was — the memo was delivered to Adm Mullen at 1400 hrs on May 10,” Mr Ijaz wrote. “We have proof that Admiral Mullen received the memorandum and acknowledged it to the person who delivered it to him.” Mr Ijaz confirmed Capt Kirby’s claim that Admiral Mullen did not know the Pakistani-American businessman. “It is true that I do not know Admiral Mullen and have never met him. But the person I asked to take the memorandum to him — that person knew him about as well as anyone can. And that person knows me pretty well too,” Mr Ijaz wrote. REFERENCE: Mansoor Ijaz stands by his claim November 12, 2011 http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/12/mansoor-ijaz-stands-by-his-claim.html 

Mansoor Ijaz Propaganda Against Pakistan Army (FOX NEWS May 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQh90sH9CgU

Credentials of Mr Mansoor Ijaz.

Mansoor Ijaz is founder and chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC (CIM), a New York investment partnership since 1990 that includes among others Lt Gen James Alan Abrahamson (USAF Ret), former director of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and the renowned German architect Joachim Hauser. Crescent specializes in the use of quantitative modeling techniques to manage investment portfolios. 'We welcome the investment by Crescent Technology Ventures PLC. The Company's distinguished Directors and Advisers, including Lt Gen James Abrahamson (USAF Ret), Lt Gen Tom McInerney (USAF Ret), former CIA Director James Woolsey, Dr John Foster and Mansoor Ijaz, have long been contributors to US and global security initiatives. Their investment in Invicta represents a new chapter in their efforts to combat terrorist threats,' said Victor Sheymov, Invicta's president and CEO. The group’s new publicly listed technology fund, Crescent Technology Ventures Plc (CTV), is funding and developing the next generation of technologies focused on protecting vital infrastructure and providing for security against a spectrum of terrorist threats. The fund is preparing investments in five primary areas of concern: Internet and cyber-security, air and seaport cargo container security, stratospheric telecommunications platforms and alternative energy development. Former CIA Director Amb R James Woolsey serves as chairman of CTV’s Board of Advisers. Lt Gen Thomas McInerney (USAF Ret) serves as chairman of CTV’s Board of Directors. Mr Ijaz is CTV’s chief executive. REFERENCES: Profile of a SAJAer: Mansoor Ijaz, Financier, Op-Ed Columnist, and Television Commentator Crescent Technology Ventures PLC 09 August 2005 http://bestinvest.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200508090939058850P.html  Benador Associates last updated: December 03, 2010 http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Benador_Associates
Benador Associates http://www.benadorassociates.com/ijaz.php

Mansoor Ijaz's Partner Ex CIA Chief James Woolsey on War on Iraq

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrgjqOa8A48

Careful investigation leads one to notice that a number of intriguing groups of people and organizations converged on the events of September 11th, 2001. An example is the group of men who were members of Cornell University’s Quill & Dagger society. This included Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Stephen Hadley, Marsh & McLennan executive Stephen Friedman, and the founder of Kroll Associates, Jules Kroll. Another interconnected group of organizations is linked to these Cornell comrades, and is even more interesting in terms of its members being integral to the events of 9/11, and having benefited from those events. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC), a company called Stratesec (or Securacom) was responsible for the overall integration of the new security system designed by Kroll Associates. Stratesec had a small board of directors that included retired Air Force General James Abrahamson, Marvin Bush (the brother of George W. Bush) and Wirt Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers. Other directors included Charles Archer, former Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and Yousef Saud Al Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family.[1] Yousef Saud Al Sabah was also chairman of the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), which between 1993 and 1999 held a controlling share of Stratesec. The other owners of Stratesec were Walker and an entity controlled by Walker and Al Sabah, called Special Situation Investment Holdings (SSIH).[2] SSIH was said to form a group with KuwAm, and the group owned several other companies, including Commander Aircraft and Aviation General. In any case, the Kuwaiti royal family can be said to have benefited from 9/11 due to “The War on Terror” that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Of course, that was the second consecutive US war that Kuwait benefited from, the first being the 1991 Gulf War led by President George H.W. Bush. Stratesec director James Abrahamson was President of Hughes Aircraft from 1989 to 1992, when Prescott Bush Jr. was helping Hughes lobby Bush’s brother, the US President, to lift sanctions on the Chinese government. Abrahamson became a director of Stratesec in December 1997.[3] He also co-founded a company called Crescent Investment Management (Crescent) with the Pakistani-American, Mansoor Ijaz. Crescent’s board of advisors included James Woolsey, the CIA Director for President Clinton who became a PNAC signatory and Booz Allen Hamilton executive.[4] Mansoor Ijaz is the CEO of Crescent, and is a rare individual in that he claimed to have the ability to persuade several governments to extradite Osama bin Laden. After meetings with Clinton and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (who first introduced Woolsey to Clinton), Ijaz said that he could not convince them to work toward the extradition.[5] Additionally, Ijaz introduced the journalist Daniel Pearl, by way of a personal letter, to those in Pakistan who are believed to have been involved in his death.[6] Ijaz went on to become a Fox News correspondent, and he was a strong promoter of false claims leading up to the Iraq War, including WMDs and ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.[7] Stratesec had contracts to provide security services for United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off on 9/11. Another client was Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), where scientists were working on the development of nanothermite, a type of explosive material that has since been discovered in the WTC dust.[8,9] REFERENCE: Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence submitted by Kevin Ryan on sat, 12/12/2009 - 4:51am http://911blogger.com/node/22120  http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=151588.0;wap2

Mansoor Ijaz, Shaheen Sehbai & Late. Daniel Pearl

"Every reporter has got to start somewhere. And the place Danny Pearl began, shortly after 9/11, was with a phone call to a number in Manhattan [to Ijaz Mansoor].... Danny called on a tip from Indian intelligence, which said Ijaz was wired with leading jihadis. ... Ijaz made introductions to three sources: Shaheen Sehbai, editor of The News, Pakistan's largest English-language daily; a jihadi activist he declines to name; and--most fatefully-- Khalid Khawaja, a Muslim militant and a onetime agent with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) who counts among his very best friends Osama bin Laden. .... Musharraf himself said [the reason Pearl was killed] was because Danny was 'overly inquisitive.' And more than a few knowledgeable Pakistanis think the ISI was involved. When asked by Vanity Fair whether it shares that view, The Wall Street Journal issued a two-word written answer: 'No comment.'" Reference: The Journalist and the Terrorist Vanity Fair, August 2002 What Was Daniel Pearl Doing In Pakistan? http://www.htm2pdf.co.uk/output/2011/11/725a144c-3d5a-47b0-b64b-6508db336bb2.pdf
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/pearlmission.htm

NEW YORK, Oct 3: A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, which makes a strong case against any foreign investment, including funding by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and aid packages to Pakistan, was described as being "infantile, vindictive and without any credibility" by Foreign Secretary Najmuddin Shaikh. At a Press briefing on Wednesday night, Mr. Shaikh observed that the article, written on the eve of the most delicate talks with the International Monetary Fund, was due to a "pique" that the writer, Mr. Mansoor Ijaz, had against Pakistan government since he could not "derive sufficient benefit" from projects he had given which were rejected by the government. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington told "Dawn" on Wednesday night that Mr Ijaz, who is chairman of the New York-based Crescent Investment Management, is vilifying and damaging Pakistan, because the embassy denied him 15 million dollars he had demanded to deliver votes in the United States House of Representatives for the passage of the Brown Amendment. The spokesman said that in 1995, after the Brown Amendment had made it through the US senate and then had to be voted on by the House, Mr. Ijaz came to the embassy along with his lawyers with a proposal which smacked of a "sting operation". Elaborating on Mr Ijaz's proposal, the spokesman said "Mr Ijaz wanted us to release fifteen million dollars for a satellite communications company R.D.D.A. which had done some work for Pakistan in 1979 for which they were not paid and they would sue the government to recover the monies".

"Ijaz told us that in this way you will kill two birds with one stone, one we will ensure votes in the US House for the Brown Amendment and the other the company R.D.D.A. will not sue you", the spokesman added. The spokesman said that when Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi was given this proposal she saw it as a trap wherein Pakistan Government could land in bigger trouble; so she turned down Mr Mansoor Ijaz's proposal saying that "it was illegal". In the Wall Street Journal article, Mr Ijaz has implied that Ambassador Lodhi used "aggressive tactics" in pushing for F-16 monies after the passage of the Brown Amendment because her brother, Amir Lodhi, was interested in the Mirage deal with France as he was the middleman as alleged in the article. Describing the article by Mr Ijaz as being 'outrageous and malicious against Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States, and saying "this is a total travesty of facts", the Pakistan Embassy in a Press release pointed out "Pakistan's publicly enunciated policy on the embargoed military equipment has been the consistent demand for the release of this equipment or the full reimbursement of the money paid". "It was the US Administration which took a decision in July 1995 to back legislation authorising the release of the military equipment except the F-16s, for which the Administration pledged to return the money. This was not Pakistan's decision but that of the US Administration and Congress", the Press release said. "Insinuations to the contrary make the preposterous assumption that Pakistan's Ambassador was in a position not only to determine the policy of the US Administration but also the decision of the US Congress on the F-16 issue". As regards Mr Ijaz, it was pointed out that he had been pushing Pakistan government to recognise Israel and he has himself visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of Jerusalem's Mayor. Last year, Mr. Ijaz was given an award by a major Jewish organisation as being the "Humanitarian of the year" for establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and parts of Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities there. Ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who attended the award ceremony, praised Mr Ijaz and his "philanthropist activities". Then in his speech Mr Ijaz thanked Ambassador Kamal's wife saying "thank you Mrs Kamal for Dal, Roti and Kabab". When the Foreign Secretary was told about the incident he said, "We all make mistakes". REFERENCE: Author was denied $15m, claims Shaikh Our Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 10 October 1996 Issue : 02/41 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/10Oc96.html#auth 

WASHINGTON, March 12: The Brown Amendment was bought and paid for by heavy Pakistani-American political donations but has yet to provide a single tangible economic benefit to Pakistan, the influential Wall Street Journal said on Tuesday. The Clinton administration s first-term policy effort aimed at improving relations with Pakistan, the strategic nuclear-capable Muslim state, has fallen flat, the paper said. The article was written by Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American investment tycoon running a multi-billion dollar money management firm, who also wrote a number of hard-hitting articles against the Benazir Bhutto government, exposing its corruption and incompetence last year. His remarks about heavy Pakistani donations to get the Brown Amendment passed could add a new dimension to the current congressional inquiries into Donorgate , the term being used for alleged sale of White House access and influence to mainly Asian donors by the Clinton administration. These remarks on Pakistan were contained as part of the article which dealt with Washington s handling of the Muslim World and the failure of the Clinton policy in South Asia. The relevant part of the article on Pakistan said: The Clinton administration s first-term policy effort aimed at improving relations with this strategic nuclear-capable Muslim state fell flat. The vaunted Brown Amendment, sending embargoed military equipment back to Pakistan, was bought and paid for by heavy Pakistani-American political donations but has yet to provide a single tangible economic benefit for Pakistan. If engaged properly, Washington s former Cold War ally could provide the strategic export route for Central Asian oil reserves. It could also provide a vital link in transporting natural gas from Oman s vast gasfields to energy-starved India. Yet, while political risk insurance and other protections for American investment remain blocked by American non-proliferation laws still in effect, Pakistan is busy creating other alliances, most notably with Beijing and Moscow. The implications of Pakistan s 1995 (alleged) purchase of nuclear ring magnets from China just as it was asking American legislators to ease sanctions against it, and its recent purchase of tanks from the Ukraine, are among the clearest indications yet of the failure of US policy in South Asia. If the US-backed World Bank funded a feasibility study for the proposed Oman-India natural gas pipeline, it might provide the needed impetus to build the pipeline overland through Iran and Pakistan - at half the cost of the deep-water route now contemplated. Such a move could bind the economic interests of Pakistan and India in a way that might finally encourage co-operation on a wide array of sensitive issues, including Kashmir and nuclear proliferation, the article concluded. REFERENCE: US journal sees flaw in Clinton policy towards Pakistan Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#more 

WASHINGTON, Oct 7: A key congressional committee voted unanimously on Wednesday evening to provide President Clinton indefinite waiver authority to lift military and economic sanctions on Pakistan and India. The amendment for the authority, moved by Senator Sam Brownback and commonly known as Brownback-2, is now almost assured a smooth sailing through the full houses of the Senate and House of Representatives as part of the larger Defence Appropriations Bill. The language approved by the committee practically takes away all the bite and sting of the Pressler Amendment without actually repealing the infamous law and is being viewed on the Hill as the biggest ever Pakistani victory in Congress. The final waiver came only after an epic battle between Pakistani and Indian lobbies and last minute long-distance interventions by Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, Petroleum Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistani lobbyist Charlie Wilson and a prominent Pakistani-American Mansoor Ijaz, who used his clout with the Clinton Administration and key senators to pull it through. Congressional experts said the waiver authority was enough for President Clinton to remove all restrictions on Pakistan, including those on military sales including aircraft, tanks and other equipment as well as spare parts. "This would be enough for Pakistan to declare that the coercive atmosphere that existed has now been removed, paving the way for Islamabad to sign the CTBT," these experts said. The committee adopted the final version of the amendment after Conference Committee Chairman, Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, gave his go ahead, but not before Islamabad moved fast and decisively to resolve a multi-million dollar dispute with an Alaskan Pipeline Company. Pakistan's biggest victory against an Indian lobbying juggernaut headed by former Republican Party chief Bob Dole, former congressman Steven Solarz and former senator Larry Pressler was mainly due to the team efforts of the Pakistani- Americans and their lobbyist who used their influence to get the hurdles past upto the last minute. The Embassy coordinated their effort. The last formidable hurdle which threatened to derail the process was the pending problem with an Alaskan pipeline company, VECO, which had lobbied hard on Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens to get their case sorted out before Stevens voted for the waiver law. Stevens, who chairs the key conference committee, and who is also the chairman of the defence appropriations committee with the last word on what his committee passes, put his foot down and in the last 24 hours Islamabad was told to either agree to VECO's demands or risk the entire process being put off for months, or even years. Mansoor Ijaz and Pakistani lobbyist former congressman Charlie Wilson, worked on the telephone for 20 hours, talking several times to Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz and other high ups to get the VECO issue out of the way. The matter was rushed to the cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning and a decision was taken to involve the World Bank as an arbitrator in the dispute. Reference: Sanctions waiver approved By Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 09 October 1999 Issue : 05/41 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/09oct99.html#sanc 

A comprehensive blueprint of how and in which direction future relations between Pakistan and the United States would, or should move, is circulating in Washington's three main centres of power the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives and many believe that there may not be a better practical alternative. President Clinton has acknowledged it, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has adopted some of its proposals, Senator Larry Pressler agrees with most of it and the House of Representatives may not find a better "staged roadmap" to put U.S. Pakistan relations back on track, its sponsors claim. It has been put forward by some influential Pakistani-Americans in the form of a confidential memorandum which takes into account the pressing security and defence requirements of Islamabad as well as provides Washington a framework to achieve its own goals. The fine print, however, needs a deeper study. The man behind the whole idea is a 34-year old American of Pakistani origin, MIT and Harvard educated mechanical engineer turned nuclear physicist turned investment consultant who was introduced to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto by a senior Pakistani diplomat in Washington as "the silent billionaire". Mansoor Ijaz runs a billion dollar investment management firm, claims he dines with President Clinton, is a Managing Trustee of the Democratic Party's National Committee and a Majority Trust Member of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says he makes heavy donations which do move things for him on the Hill, produces a stack of letters written by almost anyone who is someone on the Capitol Hill, and boasts of his business connections outside the U.S. He is adviser to Nelson Mandela's South Africa, manages investments for many other countries and maintains three homes in New York, Toronto and Paris. His credentials are impressive and CNN and the Dow Jones Business and Financial Weekly "Barron's" provide him international media recognition by interviewing him on investment matters repeatedly. He and his other friends, in similar well placed position, say they have laid the ground work for the changes that have started to show in the U.S. policy towards Pakistan (meaning others were just paying lip service) and they have been at this job eversince the Pressler sanctions were imposed. Their claims are hard to be accepted or rejected at their face value but what has actually taken place in favour of Pakistan including the change of heart in the White House, the sympathetic mood of the Senate and the bipartisan support for an even-handed policy in South Asia, was originally outlined in Mansoor Ijaz's confidential blueprint. That gives his claims a bit more credibility that any Pakistani Government official would make us believe. But this also rings many warning bells as the rest of his plan has some serious implications for Pakistan and its security. Mansoor minces no words in stating that Pakistan and the United States will have to enter into a wider security arrangement in which Washington would have to provide the security umbrella and Pakistan would safeguard the interests of the west in that region as strategically Islamabad is now the only country with which the Americans could have an alliance to check fundamentalism and international terrorism. "Yes what I mean is that the Americans have to be given bases to operate in that part of the world, because they cannot always remain onboard their air craft carriers," he argued with cold logic in a two hour discussion last week.

His blue print suggests the same thing in camouflaged language, speaking of "strategic military cooperation" between the two countries. His words may have been taken by me as a routine boast of a well-placed Pakistani, many of whom are in the habit of exaggerating things to incredible limits, just to impress others about their reach and influence. But his words instantly reminded me of an important Congressman of the Democratic Party, David Bonior, who in a speech to the Pakistani American Congress, just a few days back talked of "common defence" between Pakistan and U.S. He had done so when the Ambassador of Pakistan, all other senior diplomats and many prominent Pakistanis were present and no one had questioned him. Ijaz's blueprint suggested modifications to the Pressler Amendment in three stages because easing the sanctions was "in the best national security interests of the United States and no one was interested in allowing Pakistan to fall under partial or complete control of the Iranians." These three stages were restoration of economic assistance, including OPIC, TDA and IMET in the first stage, allowing "non-control list" military spare parts and return of spare parts Pakistan had already paid for, increased military training and cooperation on anti-drug trafficking in stage two and going for strategic military cooperation in the third stage. No conditions were to be attached to the first two stages while the third stage had a hidden agenda, of roping in Pakistan's nuclear programme into the NPT net, if not directly by forcing Pakistan to sign the NPT, by persuading it to sign other international treaties like the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) or asking Islamabad to comply with the requirements of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House of Representatives have already approved the first two stages which would open economic assistance to Pakistan, reinstate OPIC cover for U.S. businesses, restore TDA paradigms and revive the military education and training programme (IMET) between the military establishments of the two countries. The blueprint had suggested there concessions in two stages but Ijaz says the Congress was in such a hurry that both the stages were crossed in one go. The argument he had put forward was that on these two stages there was a consensus that they were in the interest of the United States. His line of thought on restoring IMET was interesting. "For Pakistan the objective was clear: They need officer training and they want it from the best in the world. For its strategic long- term interests America can use the IMET forum to encourage the moderate elements in Pakistan's military (non-nuclear hawks and doves and non-religious extremists) to rise to the top ranks and thereby know intimately the type of minds that  are controlling the panic button...."

"American military training will be a step towards containment of 'mullaism' and other forms of extremism as the educational paradigms of Pakistani military," the blueprint argued. "There is also a growing feeling among moderate Pakistani military strategists that if the U.S. wants to see more effective containment of inappropriate Iranian behaviour, America needs to cast a life raft to the Pakistani military-a military that is in essence 'out of shape' to properly withstand the current Iranian offensive," it said. "Military training and spare parts will relieve sufficiently the hawkish pressure on Benazir Bhutto to ask for 'all or none' terms on Pressler modification. It will also get her to the next election date without damaging no confidence motions in Parliament by Nawaz Sharif (a decided nuclear hawk) and give us sufficient time to evaluate the stability of Pakistan's economy, military and politics before engaging in more strategic arms equipment contracts," it argued. For these two stages, Pakistan was supposed to continue cooperation in U.N. peacekeeping missions as well as in other field like checking international terrorism drug trafficking, heroin production, illegal immigration and counterfeit money production, besides reporting tangible progress on existing and outstanding human rights and democracy issues. The third stage of the blue print was the crucial part and though the first two stages have already begun to be implemented, implementation of the last stage could bring in a lot more trouble than anticipated.

This stage envisages a "broad range of possibilities, from 'control list' spare parts to strategic armaments that have non- nuclear capable characteristics, to consideration under appropriate conditionality of strategic weaponry that would serve U.S. national security objectives.." It said the time frame of this stage would depend on two critical issues. "First our conditionality on strategic military cooperation that Pakistan be a signatory to the successful negotiation of the FMCT for which the time frame of end of 1995 and early 1996 is indicated. Secondly, and in conjunction with the first issue, will be Pakistan taking tangible steps towards meeting the requirements of the MTCR including progress on the M-11 issue." The conditions stated in the blueprint are clear: Pakistan's inclusion in FMCT which means accepting verifications of the nuclear programme without actually signing the NPT. "FMCT is an elegant roadmap that achieves the most critical non-proliferation objectives of the U.S. within the existing framework of the NPT, without compromising the internal political sensitivities of the non-declared nuclear states," it says. The final proposal of the blueprint is after these three stages are crossed. It proposes that the President of the United States be given the flexibility, under the Pressler Amendment, to certify that the "proposed U.S. military assistance programme will reduce significantly the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their ballistic missile delivery systems." Ijaz explains that by including an "or" instead of an "and" in the Pressler Amendment, the President will be able to certify that in his view whatever military assistance was being provided to Pakistan would not help in its nuclear proliferation goals. "I can tell you that this blueprint is what meets the United States parameters of re writing the Pressler Amendment and it would be done on these lines, come what may. It has already begun to be implemented," he strongly argues brushing aside any other ideas that the Government of Pakistan or its Embassy in Washington may be floating.

He says Pakistan should get its money back, keep the money in an escrow account, wait for the President to get the new certification powers and then negotiate the F-16 deal which would then be possible without any congressional interference. Whatever the reaction of the U.S. authorities on these plans and proposals, at least President Clinton acknowledges them. On May 26 Clinton wrote to Ijaz: "Dear Mansoor, Thank You for your letter regarding Pakistan and for your comments about my meeting with Prime Minister Bhutto. I welcome your input on this mportant matter." Said Clinton: "We need to continue working on ways to solve the difficulties that derive from the Pressler Amendment and the sanctions that have been in place since 1990. I informed the Prime Minister that I was prepared to seek relief from the sanctions and that we would explore our options for return of the F-16s and equipment or of the money that Pakistan paid for U.S. equipment before the sanctions went into effect. I will continue to work with Congress on this important issue. "I appreciate knowing your perspective, and I'am glad you took time to write," Sincerely, Bill Clinton. REFERENCE: Dateline Washington : A blueprint Pakistan cannot ignore Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 June, 1995 Issue : 01/23 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1995/15Je95.html 

WASHINGTON, Jan 10: A senior Pakistan diplomat confirmed here on Friday what could turn out to be the crucial missing links in Benazir Bhutto's Mirage aircraft scandal, revealed by the New York Times in its 5,000-word special report on Friday. The NYT had documented and authenticated, for the first time, persistent reports in the Pakistan media that kickbacks were involved in the Mirage purchase deal. But the NYT report did not touch on the US dimension of the whole affair. The US dimension was connected with the purchase of the F-16 aircraft and unless the F-16 chapter was finally closed in the US, Islamabad could not explore any other option, specially not of the Mirage aircraft. To ensure that this chapter was closed, the Benazir Bhutto government coined the catchy phrase of "our planes or the money back" — a business slogan used extensively in the US to push sales. The purpose was to provide the US administration an easy outlet to get out of the commitment to sell the planes and thereby open the doors for Islamabad to purchase jets from other countries. The diplomat, number two man in the embassy, Zamir Akram, who was the right hand man of Benazir Bhutto's ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, was asked on Friday to confirm when was this catchy phrase of "money back" introduced as a policy option for Pakistan. The question was posed to him, on the record, after ambassador Riaz Khokhar had finished his news conference at the embassy and granted permission to this correspondent to ask the question from his number two. Mr Akram confirmed in his answer that the first time he heard the "money back" phrase was during the speech of President Farooq Leghari to the US, almost five months after Ms Lodhi had been posted in Washington.

He also confirmed that in the original draft of the Brown Amendment, the return of F-16 aircraft was included as part of the text. Another crucial point he agreed to was that before he arrived in Washington, Ms Lodhi used to meet US officials alone, without the presence of any diplomat who could record the minutes of those meetings. Mr Akram insisted that his answer should be reproduced completely, so that it was not taken out of context. According to him: "We were approached by Sen Hank Brown and he said I want to change or amend the Pressler Amendment. His original draft amendment, included everything, including the planes and everything. That was in the Senate foreign relations committee. When it came for vote for the first time, the committee approved the non-weapons part. There were two parts: Return of all the equipment and economic assistance etc. It was a step in the direction of amending Pressler. This amendment stayed in the committee until August/September when the administration itself decided that it would support it. During this period the Benazir Bhutto visit to Washington had taken place and President Clinton had committed that it was unfair to keep the planes and the money. The phrase of money back had been introduced for the first time by President Leghari when he came here, five months after Maleeha had assumed charge as ambassador. "Then the administration told us that from the original text of the Brown Amendment, they could release only the non-F-16 equipment but if you put F-16s in it, there will be too much opposition and we don't think it will pass. This was the administration's point of view which was conveyed to Mr Hank Brown and he conveyed it to us.

"Both Mr Brown and the embassy contested with the administration that if there was support it would be for the entire package, but they did not agree. Whether it was a deliberate act or not is something for the administration (to explain). "What I am trying to underscore to you is, that as far as my reading goes the decision not to include the planes in the package was taken by the administration." When Mr Akram was asked whether at any time he got the sense that the ambassador or anyone else was working on a specific agenda, he said: "I did not get the sense that she was working on her agenda." But then Mr Akram confirmed something very extraordinary, which was not denied by the ambassador or three other diplomats present at the news conference. He agreed with a journalist that Ambassador Lodhi used to visit the state department and other officials of the US administration alone, without taking any diplomat along to record the minutes. "That may be so, but before I had arrived. After I was here. I always accompanied her or if I was not available someone else from the embassy did," Mr Akram said. His statement corroborated statements made by at least four well-known Pakistani-Americans in the US about the role of the Bhutto Government, through her ambassador, in pressing the US administration for returning the money to Pakistan instead of the F-16 planes. These four persons — a Chicago businessman, New York investment banker Mansoor Ijaz, PPP leader in US Dr Bhatti and former journalist Tariq Zaheen — had recorded interviews with Dawn in 1995 and 1996 in which they claimed that Ms Lodhi had been pressing them to use their influence to urge the Clinton administration to return the money to Pakistan. A similar report by the correspondent of another Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad, published in April of 1997, was never denied by any of these gentlemen. REFERENCE: Mirage deal: the 'missing link' By Our Staff Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 17 January 1998 Issue : 04/03 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/17Ja98.html#mira 

WASHINGTON, Nov 3: A senior US official responsible for counter-terrorism on Tuesday directly accused Pakistan of supporting training of militant groups in Afghanistan as well as providing "material support" to some of the Kashmiri militants. "There are numerous Kashmiri separatist groups and sectarian groups involved in terrorism which use Pakistan as a base...We have repeatedly asked Islamabad to end support of terrorist training in Afghanistan," Michael Sheehan, State Department's coordinator for counter-terrorism, told a Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee. The sub-committee hearing was called and presided over by Senator Sam Brownback and the list of experts who testified included a former CIA officer in Pakistan Milt Bearden, president of Stimson Centre Michael Krepon, John Hopkins University Central Asia Institute chairman Dr Fredrick Starr and a Pakistani- American businessman and columnist Mansoor Ijaz. Mr Sheehan recently visited India to coordinate US-Indian responses to terrorist threats but when asked whether he would also visit Pakistan soon, he said: "Hopefully." "Pakistan has frequently acknowledged what it calls moral and diplomatic support for militants in Kashmir who employ violence and terrorism against Indian interests. We have continuing reports of Pakistani material support for some of these militants," Mr Sheehan said. He named several Pakistan-based militant Islamic groups including Lashkar Taiba, Harkatul Jehad Islami and Hizbul Mujahideen, which, he said, "operate freely in Pakistan and support terrorist attacks in Kashmir." Asked by Indian and Pakistani journalists after his hearing whether he found any change in the policy after the overthrow of the Nawaz government, Mr Sheehan said: "We are still waiting for their responses and it is too early to judge whether there is any change." When a correspondent pointed out whether it was "business as usual" with the military government, he crisply said "no" but added: "We hope to work with them on all these issues." REFERENCE: US says Pakistan raining militants Shaheen Sehbai DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 06 November 1999 Issue : 05/45 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/06nov99.html#ussa