Americans answered their President - Page 6

Posted: 17 years ago
Musharraf's magical fiction challenges Harry Potter: Wall Street Journal
Washington, Nov 11 (IANS) Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf memoir, 'In the Line of Fire,' is threatening to challenge J.K. Rowling's young wizard Harry Potter not only in sales but also in his magic tricks, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The paper cites 'a revisionist recount of Pakistan's 1999 incursion into India's side of Kargil in the Kashmir region - which the world roundly condemned but is described in the book as a 'stroke of genius' - as an example of 'Musharraf's magical fiction.'


'Witness also Musharraf's own mighty spells at work. His omission of the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament led by terrorists based in Pakistan, his refusal to fully disclose intelligence on the Daniel Pearl murder, and his continued protection of A.Q. Khan -supplier of nuclear secrets to the world's leading terrorists - are all disappearing acts par excellence. It's enough to put Harry's Invisibility Cloak to shame.'


But fooled readers needn't feel embarrassed; Musharraf has confused many - especially when it comes to his commitment to the war on terror, the influential US daily said.


He's stepped up to the fight at considerable personal risk, as the title of his book suggests. At the same time, groups with known Al Qaeda affiliations rest easy within his country's borders and he has effectively ceded parts of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province as a base for the Taliban, it noted.

----------

haha, and Bush calls this guy a key ally on the war on terror. hope this helps explain why other statements on the "war on terror" and the "war to bring democracy" meet with such yawning "credibility" 😛 Edited by chatbuster - 17 years ago
Posted: 17 years ago
Originally posted by abhijit shukla




That is big of you! Please believe me, I did not mean to delete what you posted.

Abhijit Ji !!! Its difficult to beleive a person having 3 frogs signature!!!! Where are the frogs and where are the insects!!!!

Back to the discussion!!! Don't we feel like revolting or help the people who are revolting when our family members,friends and fellow citizens die unnecessarily!!!!! A common person may not have the calibre or capability to go and directly fight with enemy but when everything is lost , an unknown courage,strength awakens and at this state people lose their control and may support extremists also.At this point the extremists take advantage of their mental state and they do much much more terrorist activities,this is what happening in Kashmir and Iraq.

However ,in Iraq thousands of common people died and why should'nt we hold responsible BUSH for it,if a war takes place,for the  success or failure of the war only the Chief is responsible.

Regards,

Mythili

Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by chatbuster



given constraints on time, budgets etc, a basic quality a good leader shld have is in terms of setting the right priorities. iraq IMO was way down on priority. if we had to go after terrorists and WMDs, which ultimately is what the war was INITIALLY supposed to be about, we wld have been better served if we had instead gone really hard after the outfits in afghanistan and it's neighboring countries. after all, iraq's possessing WMDs was just a conjecture at best, but some countries' actually proliferating nukes and missiles to shady countries is no conjecture, is it? in any case, starting a war to finish off popsy's unfinished business is not my idea of good priority-setting.

Sahi hai. Ekdum sixer. 👏Bush proved to be a bad leader, both at home and abroad.

Edited by Pradarshak - 17 years ago
Posted: 17 years ago
Originally posted by lighthouse


 With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to harp on Bush and Iraq war but when Baghdad fell and Hussein sons got killed Bush had the highest approval ratinug. Since then the rise in insurgencies has threatened the stability in the region and in turn been the cause of dissatisfaction at home. War is never the first option but when the enemy causes harm in your home , it is inevitable.

 I am not approving Bush or disapproving anyone else but my allegiance will be with the one who tried to fight rather then the one who chose to do nothing and perhaps could have avoided 9/11... 

Yeah very logical, whatever you say. There are many nations in the world who have anti-American views. Does that mean you go and bombard each of them? N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba and a lot many. Not going after the real enemy responsible for 9/11, but after someone with a bad blood from the past. Must say a very efficient leader. That points towards a motive to attack Iraq.

Clinton might have failed to identify the sworn enemy who would be threatful to the country in near future, what did Bush administration do? There was a report about the terror plot 2-3 months before 9/11, they had report about terrorist gathering in Malayasia for a bigger event. At least hope that Clinton would have taken a different strategy to fight terrorism post 9/11.

Edited by Pradarshak - 17 years ago
Posted: 17 years ago
I am not totally convinced Bush planned Iraq invasion with honest reasons. Her are some pointers.

Long before he became president Bush expressed his desire to complete the Iraq job, that his father left unfinished earlier, to be perceived as a strong military leader. (This news story was published in Houston Chronicles back in 2004)
Soon after Bush took office, in Feb 2001, a memo to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that administration was already discussing Political Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.
Then we learned from British Cabinet meeting notes, a brief to PM Tony Blair, that the US intelligence on WMD and facts were being fixed around the policy to generate the support for Iraq invasion.
Later in the interview with ABC, Colin Powell (who left this administration half way) admitted that making false case for Iraq War was a 'Blot' on his reputation.
Posted: 17 years ago

Originally posted by bhilwara


I am not totally convinced Bush planned Iraq invasion with honest reasons. Her are some pointers.

Long before he became president Bush expressed his desire to complete the Iraq job, that his father left unfinished earlier, to be perceived as a strong military leader. (This news storywas published in Houston Chronicles back in 2004)
Soon after Bush took office, in Feb 2001, a memo to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that administration was already discussing Political Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.
Then we learned from British Cabinet meeting notes, a brief to PM Tony Blair, that the US intelligence on WMD and facts were being fixed around the policy to generate the support for Iraq invasion.
Later in the interview with ABC, Colin Powell (who left this administration half way) admitted that making false case for Iraq War was a 'Blot' on his reputation.

bingo. if we look at mckinsey-type management consultants, they start with a hypothesis and generate "facts" to prove/ disprove it. in this case, these guys went one beyond the consulting folks. it was more like starting with a hypothesis and manufacturing facts on a need-to-prove basis. having a big govt bureaucracy to selectively unearth and creatively present those facts then also helped.

Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

8 Participants 55 Replies 4713Views

Topic started by Pradarshak

Last replied by chatbuster

loader
loader
up-open TOP