Friday, April 04, 2008

Chindu says, Hillary = Tonya Harding, then Chindu = Xinhua?

Hypothetically lets say, there is a war between 2 countries A and B. During the course of the battles, B has gained a significant advantage, now A is forced to catch up and in the process has the option of using some nefarious tactics to try to win. Lets now say, you the reader, is a citizen of country A, would you allow the generals of your army to make the decisions or be defeatist and give up?
Mr. Ramesh Thakur some drone from University of Waterloo(ironically a sounding like the place where Napoleon was defeated and had to surrender), goes on the attack against Hillary Clinton, saying her tactics are negative and low against Obama.
The article is written right here in the Chindu,
The article is based on facts, I'm not denying them in this post.
Some of the facts like Hillary's Bosnia episode are well documented. But also equally well documented is the fact that she came out and apologized for saying that.
When did we hear any CPM member apologize for Nandigram or the atrocities in Kerala?
Or did we hear Karat explaining why Tibet is China's internal politics and Palestine deserves freedom in the same discussion?
Chindu would never demand that the CPM apologize or quit the election. Here Ramesh goes on to "expose" Hillary's lies. Good heavens Ramesh a politician is supposed to lie. How do you thing CPM and Congress have stayed in power? He says,
Astonishingly, she still seems to have a blindly loyal following that is not fazed by the thought of electing a President who has been proven on film to be a liar.

Another hypocrisy from the mouth of Ramesh is hilarious, read this,
She took Mr. Obama’s biggest strength — his eloquence — and attacked it relentlessly as a weakness: “he gives empty speeches, I offer real solutions.”

In Politics as in any competitive event you attack your opponents strengths. This has been taught from time immemorial by leaders like Sun Tzu, Chanakya, Alexander etc. The responsibility of a contender in a Presidential election is to do everything possible to win. The ends justify the means. I'm sure if there's a Clinton White House in 2009, you wont see Ramesh invited. Another nugget is,
One-fifth of Obama and Clinton supporters threaten to vote Republican if their candidate loses the nomination...because she wants to destroy him as a viable candidate so that following one McCain term, she returns as nominee and President in 2012

Here the author forgets that people in America have memories and unlike Indians will not be willing to elect Hillary if she knowingly cuts down Obama. Why do you think McCain is nominated? He won because he graciously lost
to Bush when he could've cut him down, but cutting down brings down your career as well.
The more you go through this article you will find its inconsistencies and contradictions. I'm surprised that this incompetent person is a Distinguished Fellow and Professor of Political Science. I hope he's not teaching to any human beings as they would need therapy to get out of his warped view of the world.

No comments: