Speaking after talks with the Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, he said he didn’t believe the Pakistani government ordered the attacks.

But, he said it was absolutely clear Pakistan was the origin of the terrorist strike and he says the government has a responsibility to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Read More

Comment: The “do more Pakistan” policy continues. The policy of keep repeating the lies until they are believed to be facts continues against Pakistan. What can Pakistan do to get to the bottom of terrorist attacks when its own soil has been the victim of terrorist attacks for past two, three years? When India has not provided any evidence what so ever in regards to the Mumbai terrorist attacks? In fact, India has not shared any evidence related to Mumbai attacks with interpol either. Why repeat such absurd lies and ask Pakistan to do more when many international organizations have ruled out any Pakistan involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attacks?

Citing U.S. and foreign officials, the Times reported the White House was unable to determine whether Israel had decided to carry out the strike before Washington objected or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was trying to get Bush to act more decisively before he leaves office this month.

Israel’s request was for the specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for the attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the newspaper said.  The White House spurned requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S.  efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programne.

The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list:

high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings.  It was the only element in the Israeli request that could be used solely for defence, not offense, the report said.

Israel, known to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, bombed the site of a suspected atomic reactor site in Syria in 2007.

Details of the expanded U.S. covert programme and the Bush administration’s efforts to talk Israel out of attacking Iran emerged from 15 months of interviews with current and former U.S. officials, international nuclear inspectors, outside experts and European and Israeli officials, the Times said.

None of those interviewed would speak on the record, the paper said, adding it omitted many details of the covert efforts from its report at the request of senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials.

It said the interviews also suggested “that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.”

But aware that financial sanctions against Iran were inadequate, Bush turned to the CIA, according to people involved in the covert programme, authorizing a broader effort aimed at Iran’s industrial infrastructure supporting its nuclear programs, the Times said.

While the paper said details were closely held by U.S. officials, it quoted one as saying, “It was not until the last year that they got really imaginative about what one could do to screw up the system.”

But the official said “none of these are game-changers” in that the efforts would not necessarily cripple Iran’s programme.

Under Bush, whose term ends on January 20 when Barack Obama becomes president, the United States has sought tougher U.N.  sanctions against Iran to halt its nuclear programme, which Western nations believe is designed for making weapons.

Iran, which has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States, says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, not weapon oriented.

The Times said some Bush administration officials remained skeptical of the covert programme’s chances of success given what one said was Iran’s proximity to achieving weapons capacity.

Others held that Israel would not have been dissuaded from attacking if they believed the U.S. effort was unlikely to prove effective, the paper said.

In its dealings with Israel, Washington was especially distressed by Israel’s request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, a request the White House flatly denied, the paper reported.

But the exchanges and tension prompted Washington to step up its intelligence-sharing with Israel, including the new U.S.  efforts aimed at sabotaging Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The Times said its interviews indicated Bush was convinced by officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that an overt attack on Iran would likely be ineffective, bringing the expulsion of international inspectors and driving Iran’s nuclear effort further from view.

“Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved,” the paper said.

Bush instead opted for more intensive covert action, it said, adding that those operations and the issue of whether Israel would agree to anything less than a conventional attack on Iran posed vexing problems for Obama.