Secret Memo of Zardari to Adm. Mike Mullen

[President Camacho]

'Memogate': Haqqani leaves for Pakistan to explain his position



Washington: The air is rife with tension in Pakistan after a secret memo, allegedly sent by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari to the US warning of and seeking assistance against a possible military takeover after Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, in May this year.

The memo was purportedly written by Pakistan's envoy to the US, Husain Haqqani, on behalf of President Zardari. To clear his name of involvement in the delivery of this memo, Mr Haqqani is in Islamabad.

His primary defence is that the note is unsigned and unverified.

The memo is addressed to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, a copy that has surfaced on a foreign policy website. It says, "Requests direct intervention in sending an urgent and strong message to General Kayani that delivers Washington's message for him and General Pasha to end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus."

As the controversy rages in Islamabad, Information minister Firdaus Awan said that Mr Haqqani's meetings in Islamabad are routine in nature and there is no substance in rumours over differences between civil and military leaderships.


Meanwhile, the US State Department termed the issue as an internal matter of Pakistan and refrained from making any comment on it.

"I understand this is a big story in Pakistan. It's partly a domestic story. We all treat it as such. We remain in contact with Ambassador Haqqani," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.

As act 2 of this latest tale unfolds, other names are doing the rounds over possible replacements for Mr Haqqani who has offered to step down if President Zardari asks him to.

Equally curious are questions over why Husain Haqqani, who is seen by many as Zardari and Washington's darling, would need a businessman to mediate with America's leadership. (Why would they ask that, Mansoor Ijaz is USA's unofficial diplomat to many Islamic countries, for a long time now.)

Pakistan's ruling PPP had decided yesterday that Mr Haqqani would be given a "fair opportunity" to explain his position with regard to the controversy over the secret memorandum.

Separately, Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani denied Zardari's involvement in the matter and also said his government was committed to protecting military institutions like the ISI.

He said Mr Haqqani had been called to Islamabad to provide an explanation on the memorandum.

But as Washington and Islamabad's relations sink further and divisions within Pakistan grow deeper perhaps the biggest question is: What this unfolding drama will mean for Pakistan's internal political situation?

 

[HariSeldon]

But right now they have a legitimate reason. I would have attempted a coup given the president is going under my nose and against me to outsiders. But army is still not attempting such an adventure. It should be clear as a day now to zardari that army is not interested in power. So now sit quietly you greedy, ******, traitorous dog (zardari) and do something good for nation, if its not too much trouble.

Thats wrong friend. Zardari and Kiyani as individual are nothing. There officaial status give them authority. And correct me, but I think President in PK is higher than COAS. Just because current person is not right does not mean that you look at undermining the authority of the position.

Democracy doesn't solution of governance in all countries so let this theory stay with those from it spread out.

Agree but dictatorship is worse than that. Specially when dictator gets his power from armed forces.
What is required is framework of governance which provide predictability and make person accountable even if he accountable to the selected few.
Members from CN can correct me, I think in China, person becoming premiere is neither from Armed forced nor he part of selected few by birth. Ppl rise from the ranks and get the top job.

I see lot of ppl here are in favour of having COAS as your head-of-state. Thats very dangerous in long run. When there is problem needed to be resolved, armed conflict is just one way to achieve to result in your favor. Diplomacy is other. In case of problem we can take consider it goalpost. The head-of-state can choose one or combination of multiple option available to him to reach that goalpost. If find the requirement he can ask his military commander to achieve the goalpost. Its upto military commander to decide how he want to achieve the result without interference from Bureaucracy.
Having military commander as you head-of-state means that not only he will try to use what he understand best that armed conflict to resolve any situation he might also change the goalpost based on means available to him which in wrong run is short-changing the ppl.

 

[W.11]

for pak members asking for proof of pak's compliciity in mumbai...

is your president's admission valid enough ?


btw well done ISI...did a great job in making the people ask for a coup again....

no because our president is a lier and ignorant

he was just using lucrative words to make mullen believe how faithful do he was to him just to ensure america acts to save his throne

 

[Luftwaffe]

Oh, I think I was not precise enough with my words.

What I mean is that the S wing is financed by the ISI, because it is an integral branch of the ISI, and it exists only for the purposes of the ISI.

But there will not be any records of the transactions, or recruits, or any thing that can be traced back to the ISI. In fact there have been allegations that the C wing is responsible for procuring the finances, and then laundering a great chunk into the cash disbursed among the civilian recruits of the S wing.

And that the activities are planned by the organization (ISI) but carried out by the S wing's civilian recruits that forge and follow their own plans.

Say, for example, a group G is made up of civilian fighters who vow their loyalty to the ISI.

Sr. Officer S wants a the house H to be raided, but the raid shall not be traced back to the organization.

Sr. Officer S calls on Retd. Officer R, and orders that the house H be raided by midnight, with no trackbacks.

R goes to meet the group G, gives cash to buy stuff, hands over the ammunition, gives (orally) the address of H, and leaves.

Midnight comes, H is raided.

Some of the raiders from group G are caught.

Tortured or whatever, they reveal the name of R. R pleads not guilty because there is no proof. However, at the same time, S denies any relation to R calling him an independent enthusiast.

In the end, it is decided that G was run by R to malign the name of the ISI.

It is just a hypothetical scenario to give a faint idea of how plausible deniability can be maintained while carrying out all the operations.

But you know AM, even if the US and India have all the hardcore proofs of the ISI's involvement in Indian embassy blast or 26/11 or 9/11/2011 Kabul attacks, they will never bring the proof out. For the simple reason that the public will call the government for an attack on Pakistan, and that is simply unaffordable - mainly because of the nukes.

Live in the real World, not bozo the clown world, thankyou.

Your comments merely are speculative based on fiction on one hand you had many conflicting contradictory statements in the past giving full credit to US Govt-CIA on the other hand when it comes down to ISI your dragging it into a world of illuminant conspiracy, no wonder you've received thanks from alot of conspiracy theorist believers.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Some questions on the Husain Haqqani fiasco

The fiasco raised many questions, some still unanswered, some not fully answered. Let us try to find out what it was all about and also put available facts in perspective.

Did Husain Haqqani do it?

Of course, beyond a shadow of doubt. He did pass on a memorandum to Mansoor Ijaz, seeking his help in saving his boss’s government. It is not a simple case of one man’s word against the other. Mansoor Ijaz has already provided enough documentary evidence from his Blackberry to prove it.

How were the beans spilled?

Haqqani and Ijaz, as professionals in tricks, were to keep the secret only to themselves. By talking one-to-one with Zardari on one side and Mansoor Ijaz on the other, Haqqani ensured complete secrecy. It might well have remained secret.

But human frailty upset the plan. Days before his retirement as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen spoke harshly against our army in his testimony before the U.S. Senate. May be he was disappointed on not succeeding in Afghanistan, or may be it was his pent-up frustration over years on not being able to get our army do his bidding every time. (In an interview some time ago with the French news agency, Agence France Presse (AFP), he said Gen. Kayani could stop the terrorists if he wanted to, and then added ruefully, “I don’t know whether he will do it or not.”)

There was an outrage against Mullen in our media, though the U.S. government played down his statement, even disassociated itself from what he had said. Mullen was enraged, believing that ISI was behind it.

Since Mullen had helped Ijaz in establishing his credibility with Haqqani, he approached him for a quid pro quo. Ijaz agreed and wrote the article for the op-ed (opposite editorial) page of The Financial Times, hoping that it would discredit our army for wilting under American pressure and not taking over. The secret that was deep in his heart came out, to Haqqani’s hard luck. Ijaz himself justified the article in his interview with Sana Bucha (“Lekin!” Geo News, Nov. 14) as a counterattack to criticism against Mullen.

Haqqani must have known much about Mansoor Ijaz, such as his conservative (rightist) leanings and his links with the Pentagon (that he needs for his high-flying diplomatic freelancing). However, he did not know that Ijaz also believes in exchanging favors.

How did Haqqani try to save his skin?

The disclosure of his approach to Ijaz was a disaster for Haqqani. He thought denial would be the best way out. So, he himself contradicted Ijaz, asked the spokesman of the President and the Foreign Office to do the same. They obliged him but it was not enough for him. A contradiction from the other side was also necessary. So, he succeeded in persuading the former spokesman of Mullen to issue a carefully crafted denial. Enraged, Ijaz hit back with a long rejoinder. In fact, he went so far as to show the entire content of his Blackberry to a high official (probably of ISI) and even offered, in his interview with Sana Bucha, to appear before a Parliamentary committee or a court. Haqqani was now in a very thick soup.

Why did Haqqani approach Mullen in the first place?

As an ambassador, Haqqani should have approached the U.S. State Department for help. He could even meet Hillary Clinton. But this channel in his view could not be very productive. A warning from the Pentagon to the army would be more effective. However, he could not meet Mullen directly under the diplomatic rules. Media savvy that he is, he also wanted deniability in case something went wrong. (A message sent through an intermediary could be easily denied if ever the need arose.) Moreover, Mullen could convey the warning to Kayani in normal conversation during one of their frequent meetings, without raising any suspicion that Zardari was behind it.
Politicians with no deep roots in the masses and no confidence in their ability to govern seek help from the outside. Haqqani knew that in September 1999, the Sharif brothers became panicky and sought American help against a possible coup that they feared. Shehbaz rushed to Washington and got a strong statement issued by the State Department in favor of his brother’s government but ultimately to no avail.

In fact, Musharraf had no plan to topple Nawaz government and would not have done anything against it if the Prime Minister had not tried to remove him in a clumsy attempt that was also illegal. (Under the Army Act, no action can be taken against an officer, even a lieutenant, while he is abroad. Secondly, the army chief could not be removed unless the Defense Secretary issued a notification about it (which never happened); there was no validity to even written orders of the Prime Minister that would-be army chief, Lt Gen. Ziauddin Butt, has been showing around.

Who asked Haqqani to do it?

It is the father of all questions. Najam Sethi (“Aapis ki bat,” Geo News, Nov. 15) did a clever spin job. He implied that the army had arranged the Ijaz article, conveniently ignoring the fact that it had nothing to gain. Kayani, like Musharraf, never planned to take over. So, a warning from Mullen, even if given, did not matter. Rather, the article would give the impression that the army did want to take over but held back under an American threat.

Najam also gave an impression that Haqqani might not be guilty, only the army considered him so. He also stopped short of saying that Zardari had asked Haqqani to do it, as if Gilani or somebody else might have done it. Zardari would have been much better off if he had Najam as his official spin doctor.

Who told Zardari about a possible coup?

Good question. Our rulers are very credulous when it comes to a threat to their power. Anybody can make them panicky with a rumor of a coup, however wild. It happened with Nawaz Sharif, when some cronies told him about the possibility of a coup after the Kargil (even though the army had no such intention). No wonder, he sent his brother hastily to the U.S. to prevent it.

The same must have happened with Zardari. Somebody, who had his ear, wanted to convince him of his loyalty and also of his being very informed, told him that he would be the fall guy after the U.S. action in Abbottabad. He could be somebody Zardari trusted very much but was fed false information. Somebody in intelligence? Some journalist, who wanted to get close to the President? Time will tell.

How will it end?

Najam Sethi says that the crisis will end with the sacking or resignation of Husain Haqqani and appointment of a National Security Advisor on the recommendation of the army. It may not be that simple. The army is eyeball to eyeball with Zardari, and according to Ijazul Haq, “On the basis of my information and observation, it is a case of who moves first.”

Azizi of the popular program, “Hasb-i-Haal” (Dunya News), disclosed recently that Zardari has asked Adiala Jail authorities to keep his belongings in the room that he had occupied while there. “I may have to live there again.” The statement has not been contradicted.

According to a media report, Zardari once told a visitor, “If I make America angry, I lose this (pointing to his chair.) If the army gets angry, this will happen.” He moved his open palm across his neck.

 

[iPhone]

Of course, beyond a shadow of doubt. He did pass on a memorandum to Mansoor Ijaz, seeking his help in saving his boss’s government. It is not a simple case of one man’s word against the other. Mansoor Ijaz has already provided enough documentary evidence from his Blackberry to prove it.

Well, if txt msgs on mansoor Ijaz's phone came from a pre paid cellphone which isn't assigned to any person than it will be impossible to implicate HH. But if he used his personal registered phone with a data plan from any regular American cellphone company than he's royally f*****

 

[Al Bhatti]

1) Civilian government comes to power and loots the country.

2) When the Civilian government sees a threat to itself by a rival party and/or it sees it will lose it's grip on power + money to a rival party, it starts to provoke the army.

3) When provoking/inciting the army goes beyond what the army can bear, the army takes over.

4) The politicians start shouting for "democracy" and the masses fall in the trap by the slogans and the trickle of aid donated during the campaign.

5) Army leaves government

6) The process starts again from 1

 

[Devil Soul]

DG ISI met Mansoor Ijaz in London

Updated 2 hours ago
ISLAMABAD: The identity of the mystery government official whom American businessman Mansoor Ijaz claimed to have met in a European city and shared his trough of forensic communication data with, has remained a key missing link in the memo-authenticity-chain. Mansoor had also said that the gentleman was not a parliamentarian or a political personality. And he was right. According to highly classified information obtained by The News, the mystery caller was none other than the Director General ISI, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

It was revealed that owing to the sensitivity of the charges levelled by Mansoor, including the alleged authorisation of the controversial memo by President Zardari, it was decided at the highest level of the military leadership that the initial investigation must be carried out by the top spymaster himself.

When asked by The News to confirm whether the official who met him on Oct 22 was the ISI chief Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha himself, Mansoor Ijaz simply said: ‘Yes.’ He has been saying in several statements in the last few days that the full data and evidence was given to the official including records of phone calls, SMS messages, BBM chat exchanges, emails etc. According to details, the meeting took place on the eve of October 22, in a Park Lane Intercontinental hotel room in London. The meeting is said to have started around 6:30pm and lasted for over four hours. The News has learnt that during the meeting, Mansoor Ijaz was exhaustively grilled over his claims and that Mansoor handed a fairly large quantity of records, both copies and originals.

The records were subsequently put through a verification process and once the DG ISI was convinced about their authenticity, he then briefed the army chief who ultimately discussed the matter in his one-on-one meeting with President Zardari on November 15. The COAS, according to a highly informed insider, had impressed upon the president the inevitable necessity of Ambassador Haqqani’s presence in the country to explain his alleged role in the memo controversy.

After the Zardari-Kayani meeting, the Presidency announced the summoning of Ambassador Haqqani to explain his position to the “national leadership”, and not just the political leadership. According to sources, the president had been fairly confident about stubbing out the matter for good in his one-on-one huddle but the outcome was not entirely to his satisfaction. Not surprisingly, in the later half of the same day, the trouble-shooter prime minister called up COAS Kayani and set up a meeting of the troika for the very next day (Nov 16). The PM, known for not harbouring any exceptional love for the beleaguered envoy, also thundered on the floor of the house that “Ambassador or no ambassador, he will have to come and explain his position.” Husain Haqqani was not available for his version on this report as he was on a flight from Washington to Islamabad.

All this happened in a dizzyingly fast changing political environment, where only hours earlier the Presidency had contemptuously dismissed the claims of Mansoor Ijaz while shrugging him off as a man of dubious credentials. What had really caused this paradigm change in the earlier recalcitrant official attitude is another revelation, made to The News.

The media may have been huffing and puffing with half truths and whole lies, dealing with an all-claiming Mansoor on one side and an all-denying combine of Haqqani- the Presidency-FO-everyone official on the other, and opposition politicians too may have been adding their voices to the slowly growing cacophony of those demanding an investigation into the matter, but these factors did not play the decisive role. It now transpires that the ‘swift’ transformation of the official mood may have been caused by an official communication, quietly sent to the president over the weekend preceding the one-on-one meeting between the supreme commander and his top commander. In this communication, the president had reportedly been specifically requested to order an enquiry into the memo issue. The significance of this communication was not lost on the political leadership. Stonewalling was no longer a tenable option.

According to highly informed insiders, it has now been decided amongst the troika that Ambassador Haqqani (who will have landed in Islamabad by the time these lines appear in print) will present his version of the ‘truth’ in an all-important meeting restricted to the president, prime minister, COAS and the DG ISI. The ambassador will be required also to respond to a set of questions already prepared in this regard, including why he has not even given an indication of suing Mansoor Ijaz for defamation and slander. Interestingly, to date the Pakistan government too has not even shot off a letter of complaint to the Financial Times, let alone agitate legally, for publishing what it has itself been describing as objectionable material.

On the enquiry front, it is evident from the string of Mr Haqqani’s recent public statements that he will undoubtedly trash all Mansoor Ijaz’s claims and the civilian leadership is hoping that his ‘convincing performance’ would carry the day and that would be the end of the matter. Any possibility of curtains being drawn after a maiden performance by the astute diplomat, however, appears a desperate pipe dream, as those demanding an enquiry are clear that the focus shall remain on substance and not the form. The situation is hardly being helped with new revelations adding new twists by the day. The latest being the admission by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta that he too was in the know of the memo. In one of the messages exchanged between Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani, Leon Panetta was also mentioned. On Oct 28, 2011 Mansoor Ijaz wrote: Tell me one important thing. Who likes you and who hates you in the US establishment? Who wants you to stay and who wants to — you up?

Husain Haqqani responded: The debate abt your oped has caused my detractors to put pressure on my boss

He then sent this message: Husain Haqqani: In US estab, I can count on Leon and Petraeus

According to informed insiders, the decision has been made to ignore the obvious and to take the matter to its legitimate logical conclusion and in the expected event of Ambassador Haqqani flatly rejecting all charges, the civilian leadership will be asked to request Mansoor Ijaz to appear before the relevant forum (which could be the same as in this meeting) and prove his claims. Apprehending a diluting of the issue by subjecting it to a deliberately slow and protracted investigation process, it has also been decided that Islamabad shall be ‘requested to agree’ to a firm cut-off date which must be limited to days, and not extended to weeks.

It has also been decided, The News was told by a reliable source, that if need be then the government of Pakistan will be asked to officially contact the Blackberry company to obtain certified data (Pin codes) and to “spare no influence, including cessation of Blackberry services in Pakistan, were the company to act reluctant in complying with the request”. The source went on to state: “If so needed, the option of initiating a judicial enquiry and issuing a subpoena to the company would also be exercised”. According to details trickling out of Rawalpindi, the leadership there appears determined on two things: a) the memo issue carries risks of national proportions and therefore must be thoroughly investigated and taken to its logical conclusion and b) no politics would be played or allowed to be played in deciding the matter.

On the Islamabad political front, however, things may be progressing on a different tangent. It was learnt that initially President Zardari had favoured the option of relieving Ambassador Haqqani of his responsibilities in a bid to seek a swift resolution to this brewing major political crisis, but now he has been advised against this course of action by an ace legal advisor. According to sources, the president was warned that an immediate firing of Ambassador Haqqani could be misperceived as the desperate attempt of a “guilty president severing a critical link” and he has been warned that such a move could also begin a domino effect that could reach his office.

In political terms too, the thinking on the hill is now favouring a strong defiant stance, not out of any love for Mr Haqqani, but for the sole purpose that were the Presidency to appear to have “saved its man once again from the all powerful military establishment”, as put by the source, “then it would garner immense indirect political benefit by appearing impregnable and immensely powerful and once again fence-huggers and even others will gravitate towards it.” Playing politics, in what is an open and shut case of one party lying and the other telling the truth and simply making the guilty pay, is fraught with fatal risks.

Were politics to be played, yet again, it remains to be seen whether the non-civilian establishment will meekly suffer public humiliation and internal institutional discontent by backing down in a matter involving national security, sovereignty and the safety of country’s nuclear assets.
DG ISI met Mansoor Ijaz in London

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

PM would be responsible if Haqqani found involve in memo scandal: Mukhtar
Submitted 46 mins ago

Amid raging political storm in the country over secret memogate, Defence minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar Sunday said the prime minister would be responsible if Pakistani ambassador to US Hussain Haqqani found involve in memo scandal.
Talking to media here in Lahore, Mukhtar said that Hussain Haqqani was part of the prime minister team and if the envoy found guilty, the PM house would directly responsible for the conspiracy.
He said that investigations were underway to find the fact and action would be taken after investigations added that if Haqqani involved in the conspiracy, the prime minister would decide his future.
Mukhtar said Mansoor Ijaz was a conspirator and he had been involved many conspiracies against Pakistan. Defence minister suggested that there was no chance of military coup in the country.
On query over Nawaz Sharif allegation on secret agencies for backing particular political party, Mukhtar said ISI and other agencies have nothing to do with the political activities. “Blaming agencies for political meddling are not correct news”, he said. He said it’s their right if Nawaz Sharif wants to take secret memo matter to the apex court.
Mukhtar said public meetings could not collapse the government adding that Nawaz Sharif can try.
PM would be responsible if Haqqani found involve in memo scandal: Mukhtar | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

 

[BKhan]

What about Kiyani sahib pleading to the US ambassador that he doesn't want Nawaz Sharif in power (WikiLeaks), is this not treason?

By they way Kiyani and corrupt generals have brought this corrupt government in power by doing NRO, army is equally responsible.

 

[regular]

PM is not responsible if the Hussain Haqqani is the only conspirator ....I guess US has gone crazy in trying to destabilize the govt within our country so that they can get a chance to malign and raid the country .....

 

[shbaziz]

Haqqani meets Zardari; ready to hand over Blackberry

ISLAMABAD: The beleaguered Pakistani Ambassador in the US Hussain Haqqani Sunday called on President Asif Ali Zardari, Geo News reported.

According to sources, the details of the meeting are being kept away from media attention.

However, during the meeting Hussain Haqqani explained his position with regard to the secret memo and expressed his readiness to hand over his Blackberry for investigation.

Haqqani vehemently denied the claims made by the US businessman of Pakistani origin Mansoor Ijaz.

Haqqani meets Zardari; ready to hand over Blackberry - GEO.tv

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What about Kiyani sahib pleading to the US ambassador that he doesn't want Nawaz Sharif in power (WikiLeaks), is this not treason?

By they way Kiyani and corrupt generals have brought this corrupt government in power by doing NRO, army is equally responsible.

Kayani did not ask the US to do anything - even if the account narrated in Wikileaks is true, it was probably just an opinion of Kayani's that he preferred Zardari over Nawaz.

Had Kayani actually made plans to overthrow the government, then yes, one could argue that an attempted 'Military Coup' was 'treason' - but there is absolutely no evidence that Kayani has ever plotted an Army takeover.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

However, during the meeting Hussain Haqqani explained his position with regard to the secret memo and expressed his readiness to hand over his Blackberry for investigation.

You mean after Haqqani deleted all the messages between him and Ijaz?

I wonder whether RIM would be willing to provide records of the SMS's from Haqqanis account to Pakistani investigators.

 

[VelocuR]

DG ISI has forensically tested Memo evidence: Mansoor Ijaz

Ijaz says that evidence against Haqqani was forensically tested by DG ISI Shuja Pasha.

US businessman of Pakistani origin Mansoor Ijaz on Sunday said that Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Shuja Pasha had forensically tested the evidence connected to the controversial memo, and deemed it legitimate on his London visit.

Speaking exclusively in Express News’ show Baat-se-Baat, Ijaz claimed to have met General Pasha in London and provided him the evidence regarding the alleged secret controversial memo by Haqqani, including phone (BlackBerry messenger) records. He said it was irrefutable evidence since it was in his phone and forensically tested by General Pasha.

Ijaz also ruled out reports that there was some understanding between President Asif Ali Zardari and Ambassador Husain Haqqani regarding the memo, saying the President had no knowledge of any such document.

He claimed that Zardari might have spoken to Haqqani after the May raid about the pressure on him, hence asking the latter to help him out in this regard, leaving the mechanics on how Haqqani went about it to the US ambassador.

Ijaz hit out at Haqqani on challenging the authenticity of the memo and ruled out any missing links in the memo-authenticity chain. He said that he was an ‘ultra wealthy’ individual who handles his own investments and would sue anyone for slandering against him using the best of lawyers from London, New York and Switzerland.

Earlier Ijaz had claimed in an article published in the Financial Times that he had, on President Zardari’s instructions and with the help of a top diplomat, drafted and delivered a memo to Admiral Mullen calling for his help in supporting President Zardari in case of a military coup.

The full interview will air on both Express News and Express 24/7 at 7pm tomorrow.


------------------------
Only Haqqani can clear mystery regarding memo: Ahmed Mukhtar

Mukhtar said that if Haqqani is involved in the scandal, then the prime minister will also be held accountable.

LAHORE: Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar on Sunday called Mansoor Ijaz a conspirator and said that only Ambassador Husain Haqqani can clear the mystery regarding the memo controversy.

Addressing a press conference in Lahore, Mukhtar said it will take some time to determine who drafted the secret memo allegedly delivered to former US military chief Adm Mike Mullen.

Mukhtar also said that if Haqqani is involved in the scandal, then the prime minister will also be held accountable. He added, however, that the prime minister cannot dismiss Haqqani from office without asking for an explanation.

He also said that action will surely be taken if Haqqani does not come clean, however, nothing can be said before he explains his position.

Mukhtar also vowed that all details will be brought before the public, as soon as details unfurl.

In the wake of the leaked memo controversy, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Friday told members of the National Assembly that Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani has been summoned to Islamabad to provide an explanation to the country’s leadership.

A memo was published online by foreign news papers, which alleged fears of a military coup in Pakistan and the army’s complicity in the Osama bin Laden raid. The memo was allegedly delivered to US Adm Mike Mullen by a Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz at the behest of Ambassador Haqqani in the week after the Bin Laden raid.

Haqqani, who has served as Pakistan’s representative to the US since 2008, denied that he had either drafted or delivered any memo. Referring to Mansoor Ijaz indirectly, the Ambassador said, “There are many businessmen in this world who claim to have a role in a country’s affairs, but they are not given importance. In Pakistan, however, one man’s claims create a crisis.”

Mullen on Thursday dropped a bombshell when he issued a statement confirming the existence of the document.

Mukhtar is very support on Haqqani even defend him all along, he must be enemy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

for pak members asking for proof of pak's compliciity in mumbai...

is your president's admission valid enough ?

What admission? Where in the reference to handing over alleged suspects to India is there an 'admission' to actual ISI/Army complicity in the Mumbai attacks?

Like the entire memo itself, paranoid conspiracies about a military coup, the other references too are nothing but 'offers' that the ruling coterie thought the US would be tempted by.