Posted on 07/05/2004 1:06:01 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
I will discount anything out of him from this point forward.
Where does Mansoor Ijaz stand now? These contributions are all before 2001.
He is a great analyst with apparantly excellent sources. Let's not condemn him without fully investigating first.
Isn't this what we hope and pray for? That some Dems will see the light and have a Road to Damascus moment?
The GOP commercials running now in NYC feature Ed Koch, co-chair of the NY Committee to welcome the Republican Convention to NY in August.
Koch has been a total supporter of President Bush since 9-11. His condemnation of John Kerry and Michael Moore is classic.
He is NYC's Zell Miller.
BTW Mansoor Ijaz is an investment broker.
BTW Mansoor Ijaz is an investment banker.
mansoor ijaz most likely works for the paki intelligence service.
he jumps on the popular bandwagon of the day, be it liberal or conservative and tries to put a spin on the politics of the day to help Pakistan and islam.
He was a bleeding heart liberal during clinton's rule. today he's a diehard conservative.
At best, he is a chameleon, doing the bidding for islamists.
You need to pay attention to his spin, he would come real hard on islamic terror, taking the blame away from islamic
govts to a few odd terrorists and then propose appeasement and measures to help the islamic world as a reward for
their terror and proliferation efforts.
he wants to address the symptoms of terror, while protecting its sources pakistan and saudi arabia.
If you pay attention to another such chameleon ,fareed zakria, he'd also try to come off as die hard conservative but then propose appeasement towards iran.
In my opinion Ijaz mansoor does the bidding for Pakistan, while fareed zakria for iran.
mansoor's recent spin was to sell F-16's to pakistan, citing pakistan's security concerns.
While in reality, pakistan needs the F-16's to defend its WMD facilities against a US, israeli or indian led airstrikes.
The pakis are such crooks that during the 80's they had campaigned to convince us to sell them AWACS so that they could defend their facilities from an american or israeli lead airstrike.
he wants us to give pakistan aircraft that would most likely be used by pakistan against US forces, since the paki nuclear facilities pose the greatest threat to america, considering pakistan support to al qaeda and taliban.
When looking at pakistan, you have to see beyond musharraf at the possibility of these nukes falling into the hands of
jihadis
this is the country that supported al qaeda and the taliban. Musharraf withdrew support to the taliban, only when he was threatened with a US led war against pakistan. He himself had supported the taliban.
Mobile nukes in the hands of the creators of al qaeda and taliban is a nightmare for the entire civilized world
The guy is a stud.
Who seems to be full of crap most of the time. Only reason he's popular here is that he comes up with a lot of unique, exciting and/or terrifying stuff, which people have a real appetite for. That it rarely turns out to be true doesn't seem to bother people.
I'm not sure where anyone with a brain would get the idea that everyone on Fox News Channel is a hard-core conservative Republican. The only people who make that claim are the whacked-out extreme lefties. Greta Van Susteren is a bona fide Clinton toady, Geraldo Rivera is on Fox, and I'm sure there are others as well.
He always strikes me as a male Rita Cosby.
Ya know, his "sources" and all!
He also hates Clinton, which is a big plus around here.
Christopher Hitchens enjoys the same fawning adoration on FR, simply because he trashed Clinton.
That he despised Ronald Reagan, and thought Mother Teresa was running a scam doesn't seem to register.
Hitchens, like Ijaz, knows where his bread is buttered, and throws just enough bones to remain iconic.
Can you stand another jolt? Toby Keith is an Independent.
Ijaz worked for the Klinton administration. Let us not forget the facts.
He once stated on FOX that his wife was Kuwaiti.
if you pay attention to ijaz mansoor and fareed zakria,
You'd think that they both are tough on the islamic world.
This is because they are tough with rhetoric. But if you look at the policy measures that these two individuals propose against the islamic world, you'd always see them to appease the islamic world, contradicting their earlier rhetoric.
These authors would gain our trust with a strong rhetoric that capitalizes on sinister things we already know about the islamic world. These are things so big, that even these crooks can't lie to hide them.
But their measures on dealing with the islamic world would always be those of appeasement.
they would always try to take the blame away from islamic govts and societies and put it on a few radicals to save the islamic world from reprisals.
they would always stop short of decisive measures against the islamic world.
Fareed zakria was a proponent of the war against iraq, but he proposes appeasement against a far greater threat, iran.
he is exceptionally gifted with crooks. he would accuse iran of many things to gain your trust, but at the end say that war is not the way to go with iran, so that he can buy iran the time it needs to build the nukes.
mansoor on the other hand wants us to give pakistan f-16's, so it can defend its WMD facilities against a US led attack at some time in the future.
Pakistan is mansoor Ijaz's country of origin, while fareed zakria derives his spiritual strength from iran.
they would always defend these countries.
China is Pakistan's main partner in the nuke game, and is Iran's main customer for oil. The ChiComs are basically the main source of all terrorism, as paymasters, intelligence providers, and ideological mentors. Using proxies to fight their wars is perfectly in line with ChiCom standard methods, and the use of terrorism is classic Stalinism at its' most pure.
but it almost happened in Jordan, exact same scenario he discussed only different taget
Actually, he is American born and raised. He is just as much American as we are. How dare you virtually accuse the man of treason with nothing but air to back your claim:
mansoor ijaz most likely works for the paki intelligence service.
Why are you so determined to discredit this man with innuendo? You call him a "liar" and a "crook" without troubling us with a shred of evidence. What are you afraid of?
everybody calm down. Ijaz has always been upfront with the fact that he was a democrat, how does anyone NOT know this. Anyone who pays attention to his story knows that he knows about Sudan's offer to turn over Bin Laden to Clinton because he was brokering the deal due to his connections as a fund raiser for Clinton. This is not a secret people. He does however go on to slam Clinton and Richard Clarke (among other dem favorites) for their dishonesty about terrorism and is supportive of Bush's war on terrorism.
Mansoor Ijaz spins it more to the left when he's on Charlie Rose (PBS), though I can't say his facts ever change. IMO, for a PBS program, Rose offers a pretty good balance & it's rare for me to get an urge to put my shoe into my television when watching his show. Still, there are times when I can't stomach his show, so if he has some real lefty guest, I just tune in elsewhere.
That was my question exactly.
And after 9/11 and the WOT.
I thought he was just an analyst who had an inside track into the middle east...which rarely is correct if I might add.
That's true. He sounds great making some detailed and interesting point which never or seldom pan out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.