DC Bureau - Investigative Journalism, Environmental News, and National Security Stories That Matter

Reliable information about North Korea’s nuclear test has been maddeningly difficult to obtain.  As a result, much of the reporting on the subject has been incomplete and inaccurate.  But in some cases, it has been patently false.  An egregious example is a recent article by columnist Greg Palast titled, “How George Bush Gave Krazy Kim the Bomb.”

The title tells you everything you need to know about Palast.  It is both inflammatory and wildly inaccurate.

Palast’s central claim is that North Korea “bought” the bomb from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear black market network in 2001, “while all our President’s men ordered our intelligence agents to keep their eyes shut tight.”

Palast bases this assertion on information he received from a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) source in late 2001.  The source, who was put in touch with Palast by the National Security News Service, told Palast that shortly after taking office in 2001 the Bush administration shut down a highly classified operation that had been monitoring Saudi financing of, among other things, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.  That much is correct.  But what Palast has done with that tidbit is not only misleading, it is utterly irresponsible.  He asserts that because the DIA monitoring operation was shut down, Khan was able to sell the bomb North Korea.

The leap Palast has made in arriving at his absurd conclusion is staggering.  Its dimensions are revealed by a simple review of the facts, which Palast conveniently ignores.

First, and most importantly, the North Korean test was NOT based on information or technology obtained from A.Q. Khan.  North Korea tested a plutonium device.  The technology Khan was peddling was for uranium enrichment.  While Khan’s dealings with North Korea may have provided Pyongyang an alternative future route to developing a bomb, there is no evidence the disgraced scientist’s activities contributed in any way to the test conducted last week.

Second, the monitoring operation shut down by the Bush administration was aimed at the Saudis, not at A.Q. Khan.  While ending it was cynical and wrongheaded, it had little effect on America’s ability to track Khan’s operation.  The United States has been aware of Khan’s dealing with North Korea and other nations for years.  Had the United States chosen to do so, it could have put the kibosh on Khan’s activities long ago.  It chose not to.  But as inexplicable and dangerous as that decision was, it did not result in North Korea obtaining the means to conduct its recent test.

Finally, Palast’s characterization of the National Security News Service as “a conduit for unhappy spooks at the CIA and FBI” is outlandish.  The News Service is responsible news organization that develops fair and accurate stories on important matters of national security.  It helped Palast several years ago with just such a story.  What he has now done with the information it helped him obtain falls below all known standards of journalism.  The News Service will not make the mistake of dealing with Palast again.

There are no good guys in this saga.  North Korea, Pakistan, the United States and Saudi Arabia have all behaved recklessly.  But that does not excuse Palast’s behavior.  What is needed is accurate information and analysis.  What Greg Palast has provided instead is wild and unfounded accusations that obscure the truth and divert attention from the real culprits.  In doing so, he has done a grave disservice to his readers.

If Palast or any other journalist really wants to blame George Bush for Lil' Kim’s recent October Surprise, they might take a look at the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush that is, whose administration, former Secretary of State James Baker recently revealed, knew North Korea had a rudimentary nuclear weapon all those many years ago yet failed to reveal it to the public.  Now that’s a story.

Greg Palast’s original article is available here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_greg_pal_061010_how_george_bush_gave.htm

[October 20, 2006 Addendum]  Greg Palast Replies:

As a journalist, I think it behooves you to contact the target of a personal attack.  I am surprised you did not do so.  I would respectfully request you post this response.

Regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation's investigation of the spike of the intelligence probe of Khan Labs in 2001:  BBC did its own investigation to further the story originally tipped to us by NSNS.  Had we not confirmed and added to the story ourselves, BBC would never have run it.  Therefore, given our own information, we cannot be bound as reporters to the interpretation of events held by NSNS.

My describing NSNS as a "conduit for unhappy spooks" was meant as a compliment.  I've never met a happy whistleblower -- and an outlet for their information is invaluable.

I must add that the tone of your unsigned posting is unreasonably nasty and petty, filled with sour grapes and poisoned with personal score-settling.  I was furthermore surprised that I was contacted by Joe Trento of NSNS only after the publication of this personal attack.  This violates anyone's reasoned standard of journalistic conduct.  Shame on you.

Greg Palast

Joe Trento Replies:

Greg,

Actually I did email you via your website but never got a response. I did not write our post but fully agree with it.

I saw no evidence in your absurd story except what you claimed to get from NSNS. Your story is flatly wrong. Fiction. Crap. Nonsense.

You have to look at yourself in the mirror but when you involve our organization in your “stories” you will get an appropriate response. The reason we have never worked with you again is because you distort and stretch facts.

Sour grapes? Score setting? No on both points. I won’t work with you because you are nothing more then a left-wing version of  Matt Druge. At least Drudge knows what he is. I really think you believe your nonsense.  I always thought we had good relations. I  found you entertaining, if a little full of yourself. 

Did you ever think of calling us for comment on a story that depended on the work of NSNS and our source?  He tells me he did not hear from you either.  Curious.

Joe Trento