My initial statement is correct. The admission came only after Kayani was left with no option.
Again, the 'admission' has been made several times, officially and publicly, by Pakistan over the last few years - your argument and rationale therefore stand exposed for the nonsense they are.
From a Petraeus interview:
There are some relationships that continue. It is not as clear as one would like. There's certainly additional focus on that. Obviously, we've had these conversations with our counterparts, with the head of ISI, Lieutenant General Pasha, and others. There is a case in the past year or so that we think was unambiguous. There appears to have been a warning prior to a Pakistani operation.
The others though are a little bit less clear in the sense that any intelligence organization has contacts with extremist groups because they're trying to recruit sources among them. And we do the same thing.
Exclusive: General David Petraeus Discusses Mission in Afghanistan - Special Report w/ Bret Baier - FOXNews.com
See this testimony from Petraeus:
6/29/10: Gen. Petraeus Said It Was Difficult to Determine If ISI’s Contacts With the Taliban and Other Extremists Were to Support Those Groups or to Recruit Sources – “There Are No Questions About the Longstanding Lenghts. Let’s Remember that We Funded the ISI to Build These Organizations When They Were the Mujahideen and Helping to Expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. And so Certainly Residual Links Would Not Be a Surprise. The Question Is What the Character of Those Links Is and What the Activities Are Behind Them.” “Well, again, what we have to always figure out with Pakistan center is, are they working with the Taliban to support the Taliban or to recruit sources in the Taliban? And that's the difficulty, frankly, in trying to assess what the ISI is doing in some of their activities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, in contacts with the Haqqani network, or the ‐‐ the Afghan Taliban. There are no questions about the longstanding lengths. Let's remember that we funded the ISI to build these organizations when they were the Mujahideen and helping to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. And so certainly residual links would not be a surprise. The question is what the character of those links is and what the activities are behind them.” [Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 6/29/10]
And here is more from Petraeus after the LSE report was released:
Although General Petraeus acknowledged that "some of those ties continue in various forms", he said that such links were useful too.
"Some of them, by the way, gathering intelligence ... you have to have contact with bad guys to get intelligence on bad guys. And so it's very important, I think, again, to try to have this kind of nuance feel for what is really going on,"
Pakistan Politics: Ties with bad guys help get bad guys: Gen Petraeus
And from the Pakistani side:
As for American allegations that the ISI maintains direct links with Siraj Haqqani, a key ally of the Taliban, the ISI officials insist it isn't so. They do have a network of agents within the insurgent groups and tribes, but that's part of a spy agency's job.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/35350-what-pakistans-spies-say.html
And:
Official: Pakistan can help broker U.S.-Taliban talks - CNN
Though the ISPR did say that the article above reported Abbass's comments out of context, but the fact is that Pakistan maintained long before the current round of propaganda from the US that it had channels of communication (contacts) with the Haqqanis.
