5-19-09

communi$t Propaganda Talking Points: Republicans, Guantanamo, Netanyahu, Peloski, and Pakistan Nukes

communi$t$, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers in particular, use the media and propaganda to rule the world. Their propaganda is made up of out and out lies. Today the communi$t$ are saying Republicans are supporting comrade Obama's most controversial decisions, which logic dictates, is a pack of lies. Republicans don't support Obama. They bad mouth him, which the communi$t propaganda machine point out when it helps their cause. Today the communi$t propaganda machine want Republicans supporting Obama and get it by just lying and saying Republicans support Obama's Neoconservative initiatives. One of their propaganda articles states Republicans support Obama's flip flop on his campaign promise to remove US troops from Iraq, his flip flop on his campaign promise to end military tribunals, his campaign flip flop to close Guantanamo, and support Obama's move to create a secrete court system without US Constitutional rights and support Obama's decision to stop release of photos documenting CIA torture of prisoners.

The Rothschilds and Rockefellers want Guantanamo to stay open. Why? The communi$t$ want Guantanamo to stay open because when Obama puts this country under Martial and declares himself perpetual dictator for life, the bad guys want to use Guantanamo to imprison US citizens they, and Obama, want locked up and steal their money. If high profile Americans Obama's minions snatch are placed in secrete prisons located on US soil word may get out as to where they are imprisoned and public opinion may be great enough to get their US Constitutional rights restored. However Obama imprisoning high profile rich Americans in Guantanamo would be much more difficult to prove Americans are imprisoned there and there would be legal difficulties for Americans getting out of a prison located in Cuba. The communi$t$ will be water boarding and torturing rich Americans to confess to illogical crimes and like the results torture confessions have produced from Guantanamo. Khalid Shelkh (Mohammed) confessed via 226 Guantanamo waterboardings to being responsible for everything that CIA wanted him to confess relative to September 11, and we know he was not responsible for 911. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers own many members of the Republican Party serving in the US Congress, if not, comrade Little George would have not been as successful as he was in dismantling the US Constitution. The bad guys own members of the Democratic Party in Congress as well. One of the bad guys' big operatives in Congress is Mitch McConnell. When the communi$t$' want a position touted via propaganda, many times they use Mitch McConnell. Mitchell McConnell, as one would expect, wants Guantanamo left open. McConnell is a big supporter of the Rothschild, Rockefeller communi$t agenda of torture, the president's right to declare US citizens terrorists, stripping US citizens of their US Constitutional rights, war on drugs, and war. One of the communi$t$' recent lead propaganda articles quotes McConnell as wanting to keep Guantanamo open. A recent communi$t propaganda article is entitled Obama faces calls to delay Guantanamo closure . Every thinking American wants Guantanamo closed. The communi$t$' take the slant in their propaganda that "people" want Guantanamo left open to push people in the direction of keeping what the bad guys', not the "people" want, left open, Guantanamo. When would be the only time true Americans would want the use of Military Tribunals? When Americans want a rigged verdict from people who are not allowed legal rights? Nope. Military Tribunals are supposed to be used in one and only one case. When time is of the essence and there are too many prisoners to give them a fair trial with regular legal rights in a regular court system. The Rothschild Rockefeller directed USA is using Military Tribunals when time is not of the essence. People know Military Tribunals are up to no good because they are being used when time is not of the essence. Have you ever wondered why Cuba has no opinion on Guantanamo being located in Cuba? Because the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are communi$t$' and tell Cuba what Cuba likes and what Cuba does not like.

Another bit of communi$t propaganda in today's news pertains to what they describe as President Obama's empathy for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's paranoia that Iran can terminate them. Of course it is a total and complete lie that Iran can eliminate Israel. Israel has between 200 and 400 nukes on highly sophisticated rockets, all supplied and or financed by the USA, all with range to hit Iran and Iran has none. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers want a world in war for their purpose of dominating the world and stealing everything they haven't already stolen, the oil wealth of Russia and the production capability of China and India and the placement of the USA under Martial Law rule. In order to steal more the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are touting the propaganda lie that Iran can eliminate Israel so the world needs to destroy Iran to eliminate this threat, which of course is a lie and non existent possibility.

The Rothschilds and Rockefellers called upon Justin Raimando in today's propaganda to debunk Peloski and Bob Graham's claim that the CIA did not tell them that the CIA water boardedKhalid Shelkh (Mohammed) 226 times to get Khalid to confess to being responsible for 911 when Khalid obviously was not. Why has Justin become a Neocon and why is he working for the communi$t$' posting and writing their propaganda? Its money raising time at Antiwar.com and Justin has sold his soul to the Devil for a buck, logic dictates.

The Rothschilds and Rockefellers want the US military to continue their unConstitutional invasion of Pakistan. Why don't the communi$t$' want comrade Obama to ask the US Congress for their permission to engage in military action against Pakistan as is required by the US Constitution? Because the bad guys do not want Obama to follow the US Constitution. The bad guys want Obama to rule as a dictator above the US Constitution. It is not that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers fear members of the US Congress will not give the communi$t$ exactly what they want, it is rather the communi$t$' want the US ruled as a dictatorship and fear any act of respect toward the US Constitution by comrade Obama would give people the impression the US Constitution has meaning. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers tact toward Pakistan is to use propaganda, as in the New York Times article printed today, Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says to state Pakistan is building its nuclear arsenal as a means of legitimizing comrade Obama invading Pakistan without abiding by the US Constitution. A big aspect of the communi$t$' Pakistan propaganda is to make people believe al Queda and the Taliban are terrorists in Pakistan and they are different from the majority of Pakistani. The truth is that al Queda and the Taliban are Sunni and basically all Pakistani are Sunni. Basically all of Pakistan is al Queda and Taliban. The bad guy directed US military is not out to get al Queda in Pakistan, our military wants to train all the people of Pakistan to be a part of a Pakistan al Queda military army. How does the USA make all Pakistani join its huge Pakistan al Queda military army? The US military uses drones to bomb the Pakistani civilians to so anger them that they join the Pakistan al Queda military army. Why is the bad guy directed USA financing, arming and building a huge al Queda military army in Pakistan? Pakistan is Sunni, Iran is Shiite, generational combatants. The USA military is building a Sunni al Queda army in Pakistan to invade Iran. Actually the US military has quite a few plans for its Sunni al Queda in Pakistan. The US will order its al Queda Pakistan army to do its dirty work around the world. Expect the US directed Pakistan al Queda army to be used in addition to invading Iran to be used as cannon fodder when the USA nukes Russia, as cannon fodder to hold India in check, as cannon fodder against China. Just as comrade Little George used the Weapons of Mass Destruction propaganda and lies to hoodwink Congress and the American people to allow the USA to invade Iraq, comrade Obama, the Rothshilds and Rockefellers replacement for comrade Little George, is propagandizing Pakistan's nuclear capabilities to get the USA to invade Pakistan without the consent of Congress as required by the US Constitution.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/17/Republicans/

Republicans Laud Obama’s Hawkish Tack
Dems Take a "Wait and See" Approach
by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment
With President Obama’s policy shifts of the past week, he has found a new cheering section: Republican Congressmen. Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC) in particular cheered the moves, lauding what he called “intelligent, well-reasoned decisions about trying to clean up the old system but not throwing it out.”

If one was to go by the amount of problems the president had with the old system during the campaign, the paucity of real cleaning is nothing short of remarkable. His pledge to leave Iraq within 16 months went up in smoke just days after he took office. At this point he seems determined to leave as many as 50,000 troops in the nation indefinitely.

But the moves of the past week were nothing short of monumental. His pledge of transparency vanished on Wednesday, when he reversed a Pentagon decision to release photos of detainee abuse. The move came under pressure from military officials and hawkish Congressmen, who feared that revealing the extent of the mistreatment would put the nation’s assorted wars at risk.

Just a day later, the other shoe dropped as officials reported, and the president later confirmed, he was reversing his own executive order calling for an end to military tribunals for detainees. The tribunals would resume with only cosmetic changes.

Adding insult to injury was the revelation that the administration is also pressing Congress to facilitate a new secret National Security Court system, which the president could use to keep detainees indefinitely, on American soil and without trial. Questions about whether the president might back off his pledge to close Guantanamo Bay also emerged, but with the likely ability to keep captives imprisoned for life without charges on American soil, the issue is largely moot.

And where are the Democrats, President Obama’s own party, in all of this? Several have expressed concerns with the president’s ever more hawkish policies, but by and large they’re taking a wait and see approach. To the extent that they have spoken out at all, Sen. Graham et al. have excoriated them as being driven by “hatred of former President Bush.” To the extent the “new” policies greatly resemble the previous administration’s, it seems that the Bush faction’s allegiance lies with the executive, and the real change is the growing reluctance of Democrats to even oppose the policies in theory.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_faces_calls_to_delay_Guantana_05172009.html

Obama faces calls to delay Guantanamo closure
Published: Sunday May 17, 2009

Top lawmakers on Sunday urged President Barack Obama to delay his January deadline to shut the Guantanamo Bay prison, arguing more time was needed to resolve complex issues vexing the closure.

"I think we ought to leave Guantanamo open. It's a 200 million dollar state-of-the-art facility. No one has ever escaped from there," argued Republican minority Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

"It has court rooms for the military commissions trials which the president has now correctly, in my view, decided ... maybe that's a good way to try some of these terrorists after all."

Obama has ordered the notorious facility to close by January 22, 2010, and has set up a review of each of cases against the 241 prisoners from 30 countries still held at the remote US naval base in southeastern Cuba.

But on Friday the US leader said he was reviving military commissions to try those people rounded up in the US "war on terror" who still face charges.

The idea of bringing inmates to the United States to face trial has raised hackles here, and McConnell argued on Fox New Sunday that the best place to handle those hearings was at Guantanamo Bay.

"There's no reason in the world to bring these people to the United States. I don't think there's a community in America that's going to be interested in taking them," he said.

His comments where echoed by both Republican Senator Jon Kyl, the Senate's minority whip, and Democratic Senator Jim Webb.

"I think that the people who have been held in Guantanamo are being charged essentially for acts of international terror, for acts of war, and they don't belong in judicial system, and they don't belong in our jails," Webb told ABC's This Week.

"And there are facilities built in Guantanamo right now that are able to do that."

Asked if he thought Obama's timetable for shutting the facility was reasonable, Webb replied: "No, I don't, actually."

"I think Guantanamo has become the great Rorschach test of how we feel about international terrorism. We should, at the right time, close Guantanamo. But I don't think that it should be closed, in terms of transferring people here."

Kyl said Republicans in the House of Representatives would take up a bill next week to block funding for closing Guantanamo unless there were assurances that none of the detainees would be brought to the United States.

"The remaining 240 or so do pose a danger. So there aren't any left that can easily be released because they don't pose a danger," Kyl added.

"There are some people that you try, very few, some more that you try in the military commissions, and we've always had military commissions of one kind or another," Kyl said.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/17/obama-emphasizes-iran-threat-on-eve-of-netanyahu-visit/

Obama Emphasizes Iran ‘Threat’ on Eve of Netanyahu Visit
Aides Say Visit to Center On Iran, Not Peace Deal
by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment
On the eve of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama has given an interview in which he claims to “understand why” Israel considers Iran an existential threat.

Though the full text of the interview won’t be published until May 25, President Obama appears to have made no mention of CIA chief Leon Panetta’s visit to Israel, in which he reportedly pressured Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak not to launch any surprise attacks against Iran. Rather Obama seemed agnostic on the prospect, saying simpy that “I don’t think it’s my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.”

While the US has publicly clashed with the Netanyahu government over the question of a Palestinian peace deal, which culminated with a claim from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that despite the rhetoric the US would accept whatever position Israel took, the floundering peace process will, according to one Israeli advisor, take a back seat to strategic planning by the two nations against Iran.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/17/the-tortuous-logic-of-nancy-pelosi/

The Tortuous Logic of Nancy Pelosi

And her defenders

by Justin Raimondo, May 18, 2009

Even I – quintessentially cynical when it comes to politics and politicians – was shocked (shocked!) by the ease with which the Democratic talking heads and their blogger auxiliary took up the defense of Nancy Pelosi. Her obvious culpability in the unfolding story of how torture was legitimized in the eyes of seemingly reasonable people is such a challenge to supposedly anti-torture Democrats that one’s response to it represents a veritable litmus test of one’s honesty, integrity, and ideological consistency. It’s sad, but true, that not many alleged progressives with a public platform are earning a passing grade.

As might be expected, the worst is MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann, who used to be a reasonable person – long ago and far away – but has, since the election, turned into the worst sort of party-lining hack and all-around hatchet-man, a kind of Bizarro World version of Sean Hannity. He led on Friday with the news of Pelosi’s growing vulnerability on this issue, repeating all of her talking points, which were no more convincing coming out of his mouth than they were coming out of hers. Indeed, Pelosi, after accusing the CIA of "misleading" Congress, i.e., lying to her, backtracked, but not Olbermann. He tried to get frequent guest Jonathan Turley, a noted legal expert, to agree with his pro-Pelosi spin, but Turley wasn’t biting: he pointed out that even if what Pelosi is now saying is true – that she didn’t know anybody had been waterboarded, that this was going to be a future scenario – there is no record that she had any objections. She avers it was her job just to be notified, but, as Turley says, the point of notification is to act.

The speaker of the House is in an increasingly tenuous position. Nothing less than her credibility is at stake. To have Leon Panetta directly contradict her, by issuing a statement declaring that the CIA briefed her "truthfully" and appending to that a general statement addressed to CIA agents who might have been demoralized, even angered, by Pelosi’s charges, is a real slap in the face.

One amusing side aspect of all this is gauging the reaction from Democratic Party loyalists. Speaking of which, we hear not a peep from the bloggers over at the Huffington Post. Arianna herself is too busy calling for the legalization of drugs to bother with such mundane matters as whether prominent figures in both parties went along with the Bush administration’s torture agenda, and her Hollywood-celebrity fellow airheads are similarly preoccupied with such pressing matters as the evil of Dick Cheney. Yet no drug ever invented is going to anesthetize them and their partisan comrades against the pain they’ll experience if they continue to press on the torture issue, as it becomes increasingly clear that no one in D.C. is going to emerge from this with clean hands.

That isn’t stopping them from pushing back, however. And what a truly pathetic sight it is! HuffPuffer Sam Stein’s "coverage" of the Pelosi brouhaha is titled "Bush Critics Frustrated as Torture Debate Shifts to Pelosi." Therein, a gaggle of anonymous Democratic strategists the author met at Hollywood cocktail parties bemoans the fact that the speaker is receiving any scrutiny at all. This is "changing the subject."

But what is the subject, anyway? Isn’t it finding out how the freest country on earth began taking lessons from the KGB, the North Koreans, and the Gestapo on how to extract information from recalcitrant prisoners? If so, then the complicity of our most powerful politicians – and the failure of the "oversight process," as they call it – is an integral part of the story.

Furthermore, this inquiry into what Pelosi knew is doubly legitimate since she has made a point of accusing the Bush administration of war crimes – in an appearance at the beginning of this year on the Rachel Maddow Show, for one – and is calling for a "truth commission." This raises the question: is she a hypocrite, as well as a liar and a torture-enabler? Many a high-and-mighty political figure has fallen for far less, and it simply terrifies the Democratic wing of the blogosphere that her time may have come.

E.J. Dionne, the liberal columnist for the Washington Post, echoes the exculpatory mantra by citing the example of Sen. Bob Graham, whose note-taking is legendary for its punctiliousness. Graham claims to have met only once with the CIA on this matter, not four as the CIA records have it. Yet surely CIA Director Panetta, in rebutting Pelosi’s off-the-wall accusation, must have checked those records and come up with some basis for claiming that there was indeed a meeting during which his agency briefed her "truthfully."

Laura Rozen throws off the pretense of objectivity and spins a complex web of supposition that allows her to fob it all off as much ado about nothing. Money quote:

"Because the CIA record says something does not make it true. Panetta is saying it’s true that our records say something, not that what the records say are true or accurate (and how would he know – he just got there, he can look at the records but not know if they are accurate)."

In short, the CIA is lying – and Panetta is a hapless fool who’s just defending his agency to get in good with the veterans. Yet this doesn’t quite wash. After all, Panetta could have said nothing, or he might have said something a little vaguer. However, what he did say was quite explicit:

"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the agency indicated previously in response to congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’ Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

"My advice – indeed, my direction – to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country. (Translates, its OK for the CIA to lie to Congress.)

"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is – even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it." (Again, translates its OK for the CIA to lie to Congress.)

How to reconcile that unequivocal statement with what Pelosi claims – "We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used" – is a task some partisan Democratic bloggers have taken up with alacrity, notably Marcy Wheeler, AKA "emptywheel," who writes:

"There’s a better way to understand this. First, look at Panetta’s statement about the briefings themselves.

"’As the Agency indicated previously in response to congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’ Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.’

"Panetta is stating two things:

"The contemporaneous records (that is, the CIA briefer’s own notes on the briefing) show that the briefers ‘briefed truthfully … describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed"’ on Zubaydah.

"It is up to Congress to evaluate this evidence and ‘reach its own conclusions about what happened.’

"Now, first of all, Panetta is not saying (nor has anyone said, not even Porter Goss) that the briefers briefed Congress that these techniques had been used. I know this sounds weasely, but until someone says, in plain language, that the CIA told Congress those techniques had already been used on Abu Zubaydah, we should assume that’s not what the notes reflect, because if they did, you can be sure both the briefing list and the public statements would say so. But no one is saying that. And against that background, Panetta is reiterating the statement that Congress should determine what happened – a reiteration of the admission that CIA’s own briefing records are not the totality of the story."

If the definitive history of ideological blindness and partisanship is ever written, then surely Wheeler will figure prominently: her prose epitomizes what happens to the English language and logic itself when they are forced into the procrustean bed of a predetermined conclusion.

Panetta writes that Pelosi and others were briefed on "the enhanced techniques that had been used" – citing the CIA’s own records – yet, according to Wheeler, Panetta did not say this, only that it is up to Congress to draw its own conclusions. This, she claims, is "a reiteration of the admission that the CIA’s own briefing records are not the totality of the story." What admission? The only admission around these parts is Pelosi’s – that she failed to tell the truth in the first place, when she said she’d never been briefed at all.

There’s a better way to understand this, says Wheeler, but first, put on these ideological blinders…

For a long time, Speaker Pelosi has coasted along on the strength of her position in the Democratic Party machine. She has never faced a serious challenge to her congressional seat in San Francisco, where Democratic Party machine politics rules. Yet now that the focus is on her, and her ability to react, speak, and make a coherent argument, it is clear that she can do none of these things competently. She’s become an embarrassment to her party, to Congress, and – most importantly – to the Obama administration, which, you’ll notice, is refusing to defend her. Maybe they know something that Laura Rozen and Marcy Wheeler don’t – ya think?

What I know is this: it is truly a disgusting sight to see the blue-state propagandists churning out complex (and incoherent) "explanations" that give Pelosi a "get out of jail free" card. If she were a Republican, these same people would be calling for her head.

As for Pelosi herself, she has always been second-rate, and now she’s in way over her head. The sooner she admits she lied and takes her lumps, the better off she’ll be. It’s sheer arrogance that has her denying the obvious and making a bigger fool out of herself every time she opens her mouth – and, as with so many others, that sort of hubris will be her downfall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/asia/18nuke.html?_r=1&hp

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says

By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 17, 2009
WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security.

Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents.

The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.

Bruce Riedel, the Brookings Institution scholar who served as the co-author of Mr. Obama’s review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, reflected the administration’s concern in a recent interview, saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than anyplace else on earth, and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing faster than anyplace else on earth.”

Obama administration officials said that they had communicated to Congress that their intent was to assure that military aid to Pakistan was directed toward counterterrorism and not diverted. But Admiral Mullen’s public confirmation that the arsenal is increasing — a view widely held in both classified and unclassified analyses — seems certain to aggravate Congress’s discomfort.

Whether that discomfort might result in a delay or reduction in aid to Pakistan is still unclear.

The Congressional briefings have taken place in recent weeks as Pakistan has descended into further chaos and as Congress has considered proposals to spend $3 billion over the next five years to train and equip Pakistan’s military for counterinsurgency warfare. That aid would come on top of $7.5 billion in civilian assistance.

None of the proposed military assistance is directed at the nuclear program. So far, America’s aid to Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure has been limited to a $100 million classified program to help Pakistan secure its weapons and materials from seizure by Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “insiders” with insurgent loyalties.

But the billions in new proposed American aid, officials acknowledge, could free other money for Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, at a time when Pakistani officials have expressed concern that their nuclear program is facing a budget crunch for the first time, worsened by the global economic downturn. The program employs tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including about 2,000 believed to possess “critical knowledge” about how to produce a weapon.

The dimensions of the Pakistani buildup are not fully understood. “We see them scaling up their centrifuge facilities,” said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, which has been monitoring Pakistan’s continued efforts to buy materials on the black market, and analyzing satellite photographs of two new plutonium reactors less than 100 miles from where Pakistani forces are currently fighting the Taliban.

“The Bush administration turned a blind eye to how this is being ramped up,” he said. “And of course, with enough pressure, all this could be preventable.”

As a matter of diplomacy, however, the buildup presents Mr. Obama with a potential conflict between two national security priorities, some aides concede. One is to win passage of a global agreement to stop the production of fissile material — the uranium or plutonium used to produce weapons. Pakistan has never agreed to any limits and is one of three countries, along with India and Israel, that never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Yet the other imperative is a huge infusion of financial assistance into Afghanistan and Pakistan, money considered crucial to helping stabilize governments with tenuous holds on power in the face of terrorist and insurgent violence.

Senior members of Congress were already pressing for assurances from Pakistan that the American military assistance would be used to fight the insurgency, and not be siphoned off for more conventional military programs to counter Pakistan’s historic adversary, India. Official confirmation that Pakistan has accelerated expansion of its nuclear program only added to the consternation of those in Congress who were already voicing serious concern about the security of those warheads.

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, veered from the budget proposal under debate to ask Admiral Mullen about public reports “that Pakistan is, at the moment, increasing its nuclear program — that it may be actually adding on to weapons systems and warheads. Do you have any evidence of that?”

It was then that Admiral Mullen responded with his one-word confirmation. Mr. Webb said Pakistan’s decision was a matter of “enormous concern,” and he added, “Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be going, as it addresses what I just asked about?”

Similar concerns about seeking guarantees that American military assistance to Pakistan would be focused on battling insurgents also were expressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman.

“Unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat from militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance will be effective,” Mr. Levin said.

A spokesman for the Pakistani government contacted Friday declined to comment on whether his nation was expanding its nuclear weapons program, but said the government was “maintaining the minimum, credible deterrence capability.” He warned against linking American financial assistance to Pakistan’s actions on its weapons program.

“Conditions or sanctions on this issue did not work in the past, and this will not send a positive message to the people of Pakistan,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because his country’s nuclear program is classified.