Imagine the clouds dripping.Dig a hole in your garden to put them in.

Comments on this article making rounds on the internet: What Pakistan knew about Bin Laden

1. "The real tragedy is that history is likely to repeat itself. Pakistani elites have learned one lesson since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan which generated billions of $$ for them. . The easiest way to make money is through creating trouble and then becoming an indispensable tool in resolving the trouble. Land locked Afghanistan fits the bill perfectly. If Afghanistan becomes the staging ground for terrorism, then the route to Afghanistan is either through Iran or through Pakistan. Since Iran has been inaccessible to us for decades that leaves Pakistan. But then if Pakistan needs to be needed for $$ then Pakistan must ensure that Afghanistan must remain a battleground. That's the reason for ISI's double game and herein lies the dilemma for US administrations who need to show progress in the short term. So here we are back again to same situation that existed prior to the 9/11 attacks and still we show no "spine" to address the root problem. No wonder the countries in the region have become so frustrated with us (US)."

2. "Mighty thorough piece. I am glad somebody has had the courage to go there and do that. How she bore the stress of all this, however, is what really commends her reportage. Ms. Gall seems to have out-investigated the "best", whatever that may possibly mean. What we Westerners keep misunderstanding is that these people and these cultures do not resonate with our DNA. We simply do not vibrate as they do, and it's not all the product of Muslim indoctrination. It would seem that the tribal and ethnic effects of thousands of years of conflict cannot simply be undone by having access to a few of Western technology's little toys."

3. "For an author claiming to spend so many years in the region, I'm surprised she missed so many nuances. Military may have supported elements of the Afghan Taliban but they never supported Al-Qaeda (at least not as an organization).
The article is full of contradictions and unnamed sources. For example, it says "Akhtar is considered one of the ISI’s most valuable assets." In the next paragraph it says Akhtar was involved in the GHQ attack! How could he be a "valuable asset" of the ISI if he's attacking the army headquarters? Also, it alleges that the military was supporting and aiding Al-Qaeda. But, it fails to mention the hundreds of Al-Qaeda operatives, like Khalid Shiekh Mohammad, were captured by the army and handed over to the Americans. It also fails to mention the fact that Musharraf was attacked twice by Al-Qaeda. If the army was supporting them, why were they attacking their chief?"

4. "Gall not once references Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, or the role that arsenal may play in forcing US diplomats to tip-toe around the ISI.

Maybe Washington is afraid that pressing the ISI for some small degree of accountability on al-Qaida will somehow destabilize the government to the point that the arsenal falls under the direct control of the ISI's Qaida-Taliban faction.

Whatever the case, it seems clear the Medusa-like ISI rules the roost. It's equally clear that a nuclear arsenal in the hands of al-Qaida would result in a global catastrophe.

I have long wished that someone would offer some information, no matter how sanitized, about that arsenal and who -- nominally or otherwise -- controls it."