Astrix, perhaps before you criticize others, you ought to resolve your own lazy habit of replying to your own preconceptions rather than what actually was written. I re-read the chain, and it's clear you were replying to some conception of your own of what you expected me to say, without actually bothering to read what I wrote. Whether my frustration with that sort of stupidity can fairly be called "touching a nerve" I don't know--but your little rant smacks of an attempt to cover up a bruised ego by feigning outrage.
So back on topic:
What the ISI stated in the article Seth linked was likely true. It is likely true that they were providing the Americans with actionable intelligence, it's likely true that practically any strike on Al Qaeda worldwide was carried out with some assistance from ISI, that the capture of OBL was based in part on information they provided, and that it was the Americans that ended the co-operation with them. No doubt it isn't the whole truth, they're probably aware that the are other elements of the ISI that were likely aiding OBL, and they didn't bother mentioning that part. But what the ISI source said in that article, which echoed what Obama also said, was likely the truth.
So back on topic:
What the ISI stated in the article Seth linked was likely true. It is likely true that they were providing the Americans with actionable intelligence, it's likely true that practically any strike on Al Qaeda worldwide was carried out with some assistance from ISI, that the capture of OBL was based in part on information they provided, and that it was the Americans that ended the co-operation with them. No doubt it isn't the whole truth, they're probably aware that the are other elements of the ISI that were likely aiding OBL, and they didn't bother mentioning that part. But what the ISI source said in that article, which echoed what Obama also said, was likely the truth.
