One of the few redeeming features of New York Times is its columnist Maureen
Doud . Nobel Laurite Paul Kugman , generally a government spokesman is just
about OK .Judith Miller told such lies cheerleading the illegal invasion on
Iraq that NYT had to apologise .Thomas Friedman said in a November 2003
column that the Operation Iraqi freedom was one of the noblest mission to
bring democracy to Iraq. Sekhar Gupta ,the Editor of Indian Express which
gives space to pieces from NYT and the Economist and non-resident
non-Indians like Raja Mohan , had this to say .
Let me quote from the Indian Express , (1st Feb, 2003) .Welcoming the
imminent illegal US led invasion , named operation Iraqi freedom , Sekhar
Gupta wrote under title 'Saddam, Snookers's first frame ' --" –for the Bush
team –process of change (is)–to modernise and democratize and restructure
the Islamic world – into Saudi Arabia and then every other part of the
region where militant Islam breeds ---Musharraf is not laughing –does that
work to our benefit or detriment? This war will not be about oil but about
militant Islam and everybody's future. This is the bigger picture –"
Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, director-general of the British security
service MI5 from 2002 to 2007, in her testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry into
UK's role under PM Tony Blair joining USA in an illegal invasion of Iraq in
2003,stated that Saddam Hussein was not a credible terrorist threat to the
U.K, Iraq did not have the capability to mount attacks in the U.K. and there
was no serious risk of Iraqi WMDs falling into other hands; that the CIA did
not think there was a connection between Saddam and the al-Qaeda. She
countered Blair's view by stating that the invasion of Iraq radicalised part
of a generation of young British Muslims who saw the invasion as an attack
on Islam. She also testified that MI5's domestic work had expanded sharply
enough for the agency to receive an immediate 100 per cent increase in
funding, and that invading Iraq had given Osama bin Laden his "Iraqi jihad"
in the form of a foothold in that country.
Of course when Blairs come to India, watch the fawning Indians specially on
India's corporate channels . Labour Foreign ministers like Cook ( Blair's)
and last one Milliband want Kashmir to be resolved to avoid terror attacks
like 2611 like. This official support provides oxygen to terrorists and
separatists in Kashmir .How about decolonizing North Ireland as was South
Ireland , now Ireland.
Tony Blair had to cancel some of his book signing engagements in UK faced
with eggs and tomato throwing crowds.
US led West believe and have made Blair an envoy to help resolve
Israel-Arabs dispute !!!
Now let us turn to Doud and her comments on the biggest liar and criminal
Tony Blair ,along with George Bush , both admirer of another liar and India
hating imperialist Winston Churchill ( Watch this space)
Have a nice Eid Mubarak Gajendra 10 September, 2010
The Poodle Speaks New York Times ,4 Sept, 2010 By MAUREEN
DOWD<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
Even in the thick of a historical tragedy, Tony Blair never seemed like a
Shakespearean character.
He's too rabbity brisk, too doggedly modern. The most proficient spinner
since Rumpelstiltskin lacks introspection. The self-described "manipulator"
is still in denial about being manipulated.
The Economist's review of "A Journey," the new autobiography of the former
British prime minister, says it sounds less like Disraeli and Churchill and
more like "the memoirs of a transatlantic business tycoon."
Yet in the section on Iraq, Blair loses his C.E.O. fluency and engages in
tortured arguments, including one on how many people really died in the war,
and does a Shylock lament.
He says he does not regret serving as the voice for W.'s gut when the
inexperienced American princeling galloped into war with Iraq. As for "the
nightmare that unfolded" — giving the lie to all their faux rationales and
glib promises — Tony wants everyone to know he has feelings.
"Do they really suppose I don't care, don't feel, don't regret with every
fibre of my being the loss of those who died?" he asks of his critics.
In Iraq, marking the transition to the "post-combat mission" for American
troops, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was eloquent with an economy of
words.
Asked by a reporter if Iraq would have to be a democratic state for the war
to benefit U.S. national security, Gates cut to core: "The problem with this
war for, I think, many Americans is that the premise on which we justified
going to war proved not to be valid — that is, Saddam having weapons of mass
destruction." He added, candidly: "It will always be clouded by how it
began."
Iraq will be "a work in progress for a long time," Gates said, and, "how it
all weighs in the balance over time, I think remains to be seen."
Blair writes that he thought he was right and that he and W. rid the world
of a tyrant. But he winds up with a bitter anecdote: "I still keep in my
desk a letter from an Iraqi woman who came to see me before the war began.
She told me of the appalling torture and death her family had experienced
having fallen foul of Saddam's son. She begged me to act. After the fall of
Saddam she returned to Iraq. She was murdered by sectarians a few months
later. What would she say to me now?"
There is no apology, but Blair sounds like a man with a guilty conscience.
He concedes that the invasion of Iraq was more about symbols than immediate
security, about sending "a message of total clarity to the world," after
9/11, that defying the will of the international community would no longer
be tolerated.
In other words, Osama bin Laden had emasculated America, and America had to
hit back, and did so against a country that had nothing to do with him or
9/11.
Blair did not want to be W.'s peripheral poodle. He wanted to "stand tall
internationally" with Britain's main ally and not "wet our knickers," to use
a Blair phrase, when the going got tough (or delusional).
Blair fantasized that Saddam might someday give W.M.D. to terrorists. This,
even though the dictator didn't like terrorists because they were impossible
to control, and even though, as Blair admits, (the secular) Saddam and (the
fundamentalist) Osama were on opposite sides. (When Saudi Arabia felt
threatened by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Osama offered to fight the Iraqi
dictator.)
It is criminally naïve, given the billions spent on intelligence, that Blair
and W. muffed the postwar planning because they never perceived what Blair
now acknowledges as "the true threat": outside interference by Al Qaeda and
Iran. So the reasoning of the man known in England as Phony Tony or Bliar
amounts to this: They had to invade Iraq because Saddam could hypothetically
hook up with Al Qaeda. But they didn't properly prepare for the insurgency
because they knew that Saddam had no link to Al Qaeda.
He knew Dick Cheney had a grandiose plan to remake the world and no patience
for "namby-pamby peacenikery."
"He would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran," as well as
"Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.," Blair writes of Cheney, adding: "He was for hard,
hard power. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. We're coming after you, so change or
be changed."
The religious Blair fancied himself a conviction politician who had
intervened for good in Kosovo and Sierra Leone and would do so again in
Iraq. So he did not, as he said others did, "reach for the garlic and
crucifixes" when Dick hatched his sulfurous schemes.
If he had challenged W. and Cheney instead of enabling them, Blair might
have stopped the farcical rush to war. Instead, he became the midwife for a
weaker Iraq that is no longer a counterweight to Iran — which actually is a
nuclear threat — and that seems doomed to be run one day by another brutal
strongman.
Maybe Blair should have realized the destructive Oedipal path W. was on. At
their first meeting at Camp David, W. screened "Meet the Parents."
--
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death." --
Albert Einstein !!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22151765/History-of-Pakistan-Army-from-1757-to-1971
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21686885/TALIBAN-WAR-IN-AFGHANISTAN
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22455178/Letters-to-Command-and-Staff-College-Quetta-Citadel-Journal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150027/Pakistan-Army-through-eyes-of-Pakistani-Generals
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23701412/War-of-Independence-of-1857
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22457862/Pakistan-Army-Journal-The-Citadel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21952758/1971-India-Pakistan-War
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25171703/BOOK-REVIEWS-BY-AGHA-H-AMIN
No comments:
Post a Comment