Presidency, ISPR denials based on assumptions: Mansoor

The central figure in memo scandal, Mansoor Ijaz, said that telephonic conversation between President Asif Ali Zardari and Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani regarding US Navy SEALs raid on Osama Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011 based on assumptions that now require complete clarification.In his email sent to Dunya News, Mansoor Ijaz clarified that he himself was not sure of the authenticity of the transcript he entered into evidence during Thursday’s Judicial Commission hearing, and had presented it to the court with a disclaimer to view it on its own merit.He said that denials by Presidency and ISPR are based on a set of assumptions that now require complete clarification.“Nowhere in the transcript is there any mention of a direct call between President Asif Ali Zardari and Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. There is repeated mention of calls between the offices of the two men, but none that took place directly between them,” he said.“I asked that the transcript be sealed during Thursday’s hearing for precisely this purpose — that I myself was not certain of its authenticity or accuracy, but since it was one factor of many in my decision to ask Gen James Jones to forward the message to Adm Mike Mullen which had been dictated to me by Husain Haqqani on May 9, 2011, it was a relevant fact to the Commission’s search for truth about the purpose of the Memorandum, he said.“I asked Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa to evaluate the document on its merit with both his esteemed colleagues before making a judgment about its value to the proceedings,” he said.“ISPR and the Presidency picking up on one specific point based on media reports of what is contained in the transcript demonstrates continuing distortions in the search for truth about the alleged complicity of President Zardari in the Memorandum affair and the events of May 2nd. What about the other 40 or so entries in the logs of what happened on that night? Why has ISPR and the Presidency not yet commented on the veracity — or not — of those points as well,” he asked.