Heights of deception
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST
It has taken seven years after the event for General Pervez Musharraf to come out with his version of the Kargil war. What an imaginative version! He tells us now that it was a great victory. It helped to internationalise the Kashmir issue. It was undertaken because the Indian side was preparing an offensive operation. He expects the Pakistanis and the rest of the world to accept this version after dozens of books have been written on the war, an overwhelming number of which give a very different version of the event. The general either has very great confidence in his persuasive powers or harbours utter contempt for the people of Pakistan, who are the primary audience of this book.
If India was preparing for an offensive action and this move was undertaken as a countermeasure, why was this charge not made earlier when the then Pakistani foreign minister, Sartaj Aziz, visited India in June 1999? Why did it not feature in the conversations of the director-generals of military operations? Why did not Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif raise the issue in his conversations with Atal Bihari Vajpayee? The general claims it was a great victory for his army. Why then is it that the officers and men of the Pakistan army who fought valiantly and got killed did not get the decent burial that was their due? Why were their bodies abandoned on Indian territory? There is no precedent in the history of warfare of a victorious army behaving this way. Why did Pakistan not own up to this victory? Why was it not advertised to the great pride of the Pakistani people till this book was published?
If Pakistan’s action was a preventive or preemptive action against a planned Indian offensive, there should have been no difficulty in it owning up to the presence of its Northern Light infantrymen across the LoC. But the myth of “mujahideen” was maintained even at the time of withdrawal. There was no need for Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz to cover himself with ridicule by claiming that the LoC was not clear, with the Indian side throwing at him the demarcation maps signed by General Hamid of Pakistan and General Bhagat of India.
Musharraf is economical with the truth when he claims that he told Nawaz Sharif, as he was leaving for Washington on July 3, 1999, that the military situation was favourable to Pakistan. Tololing was recaptured on June 17, Point 5149 in the Dras section on June 20, and Tiger Hill in the Dras sector was retaken even as Sharif was flying to Washington. Presumably the Americans did not share the general’s assessment of the military situation being favourable.
According to Bruce Riedel’s account, the Pakistani army was attempting to escalate the conflict while being pushed back, by attempting to deploy presumably nuclear missiles, as the Americans assessed. General Musharraf denies this and says that at that stage the Pakistani nuclear arsenal was not in a position to be deployed. He may well be right on that point.
However, the Americans with their satellite information were not confirming General Musharraf’s assessment to Prime Minister Sharif on the night of July 3, 1999 that the military situation was favourable to Pakistan.
General Musharraf claims Kargil as a great diplomatic success since it internationalised Kashmir. In fact, it was the first time India found that neither China nor the United States was prepared to back Pakistan on its misadventure and in a sense Kargil marked a turning point in Indo-US relations. President Clinton’s firm stand that there was no point in Sharif coming to Washington unless he was prepared to withdraw his forces impressed India favourably. Subsequently, in March 2000, on General Musharraf’s watch, Clinton said in his TV address to the entire Pakistani nation that borders could not be redrawn in blood. Evidently these developments count as favourable ones from General Musharraf’s point of view. No need for India to quarrel with him on this issue.
General Musharraf confirms the conclusion of the Kargil Committee report that the balance of probability suggested that Nawaz Sharif was fully in the picture. This, it may be recalled, was against the wisdom of the then top Indian political leadership who maintained that Sharif, who had signed the Lahore Declaration, could not have approved the Kargil aggression. While the general may not necessarily be truthful on all points in recounting the Kargil misadventure, it is clear that Sharif too has not been telling the truth on Kargil.
Obviously the book is a kind of election manifesto for the general to stand for election as president next year. Among the previous military rulers of Pakistan, President Ayub Khan and President Yahya Khan did not survive defeats in the military adventures they launched. In this case, the war was launched by Sharif, no doubt instigated by General Musharraf. Sharif has paid the penalty for launching the Kargil war.
General Musharraf is trying to salvage his position after having survived the aftermath of the Kargil debacle for seven years. His version of events is not likely to impress political leaders, analysts or military establishments around the globe. On the issue of Kargil, the audience he is aiming at is Pakistani servicemen and common people. Presumably he relies on public memory being proverbially short. Still he has taken high risks of being challenged in his own country. India has to deal with General Musharraf as a ruler of neighbouring Pakistan. There is no alternative to that. In doing that we have to bear in mind the mindset of the leader we are dealing with. In this case, he seems to be a person who is not highly concerned about his own credibility.
The writer was chairman of the Kargil Review Committee set up by the Government of India in 1999
___________________________
Hogwash: Brajesh, Gen MalikAdd to Clippings
Rajat Pandit
[ 26 Sep, 2006 0034hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
NEW DELHI: Having served with Pakistan's elite Special Service Group as a commando, General Pervez Musharraf knows the importance of psychological operations.
But this time, he's clearly overreached by trying to pin the blame on India for the 1999 Kargil conflict. In his book, In the Line of Fire: A Memoir, Musharraf claims aggressive moves by Indian Army along the contentious LoC in 1998 forced Pakistan to reinforce its forward positions in the Kargil region, which eventually led to the conflict.
Plain hogwash by a person used to peddling lies, say the then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra and the then Army chief General V P Malik.
"I have read the chapter on Kargil in Musharraf's book...There are a lot of untruths in it. The book will further expose Musharraf as someone who cannot be believed," General Malik told TOI on Monday.
"Musharraf is trying to whitewash all the harm he did to Pakistan's polity and international standing by undertaking the Kargil misadventure. In the book, he tries to shift all the blame for the ceasefire and subsequent withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Kargil to Nawaz Sharif," he added.
Brajesh Mishra dismissed as a "bundle of lies" Musharraf's description of the Kargil conflict as a "landmark in the history of Pakistani Army" and said: "India did not cross the Line of Control... Pakistan Army did and it was defeated."
Mishra said: "According to estimates, Pak Army lost between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel."
___________________
'Musharraf's book harming Pak'
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 09:05:41 am
Print this PageEmail this PageComment on this Page
/photo.cms?msid=2030358
IN THE LINE OF FIRE: President Musharraf’s book has not been well received by senior bureaucrats in Pakistan
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf' is very much the man of the moment - courting controversy as pre release hype for his memoir 'In the line of Fire', which is up best seller lists a day after its release.
However, in Pakistan, people have not taken to his supposed revelations too kindly. Some even questioning his right to publish the memoir saying it may have breached the oath of office.
‘Musharraf has no achievement to his credit’
"I think he wrote this book at a time when he is thoroughly discredited; he has really no achievement to his credit," Roedad Khan, a former senior bureaucrat and analyst, told Reuters on Tuesday (September 26).
General Musharraf, who has controversially retained his role as army chief, has had to walk a tightrope since forging an alliance with the United States after Sept 11, 2001, as the majority of Pakistanis disagree strongly with US foreign policy.
But for foreign readers, Musharraf's chapters dealing with the war on terrorism could generate a sense of relief that the general is still at the helm. "He (Musharraf) is telling the West: "You have kept me there, you know, if you want to win the war on terror. And you have to allow me to keep my uniform, you know, as Chief of Army Staff if you want me to win this war,"' Khan said, adding, "These are the arguments he is using, and I think he is succeeding."
The Pakistani president claimed he wrote the book as he wanted the world to understand Pakistan better, but his own people don't seem to be buying his claim.
Analysts in Pakistan are also worried about the president writing about security issues and relations with other countries.
‘Musharraf the only one benefited’
Lieutenant-General Asad Durrani, Former Chief Of Pakistan's Top Spy Agency, ISI, says, "I've thought a great deal about it. Does it (Musharraf's Book) help Pakistan, its image or its policies, its relations with anyone at all? And I still have to find a positive answer."
Durrani further adds, "When we talk about Kargil of course we will end up annoying very many people in India, which may have been alright if we had actually talked about Kargil in a manner in which we generally have known it. But trying to defend Kargil was not going to be helpful."
"All that I can conclude is the book only helps one man and that is Pervez Musharraf," says Durrani.
But as the controversies pile up so do the book sales. It’s already No. 7 on the Amazon.com bestseller list. Booksellers both in Islamabad and in the West say despite the high retail cost of the book, people were still buying it, boosting the capital's flagging book business.
________________
Now for some ghazals too
September 26, 2006
Hindustan Times (India)
It is standard practice for leading public figures to write their memoirs after they have reached the climax of their careers. They either unveil themselves and the goings-on during their time after they have stepped down from office (the memoirs of Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Jaswant Singh, etc.), or their writings steer clear from their day job (Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s poems, Abdul Kalam’s soul-stirrers, etc). The author of In The Line of Fire does away with such niceties and, รก la Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy et al, writes a campaign manifesto-as-memoir. The President of Pakistan presents a dictatorial perspective of his handling of the ongoing war on terror, the ‘real’ reason behind the 1999 “counter-coup”, the shenanigans within Pakistani polity and the ‘personal bits’ with which he wants us to know that the dictator can become a cuddly elected President in 2007.
But the real bits that jump out and are the USP of the book are Pervez Musharraf’s observations involving India. He insists that it was India, not Pakistan, that started the Kargil conflict, which in turn led to “the initiative” being “wrested from India” and creating an imbalance in the “Indian system of forces”. Never mind the propaganda or empirical evidence, the General insists that India lost the war it had started. Strangely, though, he writes in the last line of the chapter: “... whatever movement has taken place so far in the direction of finding a solution to Kashmir is due considerably to the Kargil conflict.” Does this mean that he is giving India credit for leading the way via Kargil to an India-Pakistan peace process? Even the most rumbustious hawk in New Delhi will feel embarrassed to take such credit. Mr Musharraf also writes about a Dubai-based cartel that provided Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan-led nuclear programme with the wherewithals. A confession that is late is better than no confession. But to get to the bottom of his claim that India’s uranium enrichment programme could have come from the same network requires another set of memoirs — perhaps those of Dr Khan.
All this ‘remembrance of things past’ has already upset many in India. It is too early to tell whether J.K. Rowling is worried about competition. But Mr Musharraf is the man with whom Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be talking about India-Pakistan ties. This is a serious issue that requires both tact and facts — not the subject of a future foray into a new sub-genre of fantasy fiction. For Mr Singh to find himself as the subject of Mr Musharraf’s next presidential memoir — as Richard Armitage finds himself in this one — could make him rethink opening his mouth. History is supposedly written by the victor. But history as presented by a fabulist in a memoir can be an effective spanner in the works. Forget Indian diplomats. Would you invite Mr Musharraf, the latest magic realist from the subcontinent, to dinner?
___________________________
Will Musharraf's book reopen old wounds?
By Shahzeb Jillani
BBC News, Washington
Not surprisingly, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf's memoirs has generated a strong reaction.
Now he must respond to some of the strongest criticism and denials about his sensational claims made in In The Line of Fire.
In an interview with an American TV network before the book launch, Gen Musharraf said that the US had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate in the war on terror.
In a joint press briefing after meeting President Bush at the White House on Friday, he refused to clarify the comments saying "he was honour-bound" to the publishers not to discuss the book before the launch.
For his part, President Bush said he is not aware of his country making such a threat to Pakistan.
Startling claims
Moreover, Richard Armitage, the former US official Gen Musharraf names as having delivered the threat to his intelligence chief, has denied the remarks attributed to him.
Mr Armitage, however, admits that soon after 9/11 he did deliver "a strong message" to the Pakistanis that either they were with the US or against it in the US-led war on terror.
In his book, Gen Musharraf has also made some startling claims about the 1999 Kargil conflict with India.
He lauds Pakistan army's "landmark" performance during the Kargil conflict and claims that it was the Indian army which wanted to capture Pakistani territory in 1999 that finally led to the Kargil war.
For many Indians, Kargil is a painful episode of betrayal and military adventure by Pakistan.
No wonder then, that President Musharraf's latest claims have drawn bitter reaction from Indian politicians and the media.
"All that he is saying is a pack of lies. He attacked us and then lost. That's the reality," is how India's former national security advisor, Brajesh Mishra, sums up the popular Indian sentiment.
The renewed controversy over what led to the Kargil conflict and who was responsible for it comes at a time when nearly more than a week ago the two countries decided to resume the suspended peace talks.
During the recent meeting in Havana, Gen Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged to work together to resolve all their disputes, including Kashmir.
'Trust deficit'
For the first time, they also decided to set up a joint mechanism to fight terrorism, something Mr Singh's government is still facing a lot of criticism for from the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
According to Indian officials, in Havana, the two sides made significant progress in improving the "trust deficit" between the two South Asian rivals.
Now, analysts worry that Gen Musharraf's candid views about the Kargil conflict threaten to reopen old wounds and spoil the prevailing positive mood for dialogue between the two nations.
In Pakistan, Gen Musharraf's critics have taken strong exception to the way he is seen to be promoting his book during his official US visit.
The opposition has accused him as a self promoting military ruler seeking to make a fortune in the name of Pakistan.
But, say his supporters, like him or not, through his controversial disclosures, he has managed to sell the book as a must read on contemporary Pakistan.
Meanwhile, In The Line Of Fire, out at the book stands in the US and Pakistan since early Monday morning, is said to be selling fairly well.
The book ranked 17th and 18th on online book retailer Amazon.com and Barnes & Nobles best sellers list respectively just before its launch. Within hours, it jumped to 14th on Amazon list and 12th on Barnes & Nobles site.
Given the controversies it seems to have triggered, the book is expected to climb further on the best sellers list.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/5380350.stm
______________
The coming conflict with Pakistan
Indrajeet Rai
India Post Spetember 25, 2006
Is Pervez Musharraf on his way out? Though none can predict his fate with certitude, he is facing the most serious crisis and there are signs suggesting his likely departure. If he finally departs, or just manages to survive, what are the implications for India?
The killing of Akbar Khan Bugti by the Pakistan army "sent a clear message to Musharraf that his era is over", said the Khan of Kalat-Mir Suleman Dawood, a descendant of Balochistan's earlier rulers. Bugti's killing was reportedly against the wishes of the President.
Some forces within the Pakistan army, which do not wish the continuation of the Musharraf regime, had effected the killing to create trouble and embarrass him. Rumors of a possible coup against him have been going round for some time.
An indication, apart from Bugti's killing against the General's dictates, indicative of broad disaffection with Musharraf's rule, is a letter written on July 18 by a group of retired military and government officials, calling for the military's disengagement from political power and asking Musharraf to either resign as the Chief of the Army Staff or as the President.
An opinion poll conducted by the International Republic Institute of the US which was published in the Dawn, found that 48 percent were of the opinion that Musharraf should not hold two offices simultaneously.
What was more interesting in the poll was a desire for the return of democracy in the Pakistani populace with two-thirds voting for the return of the exiled Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to the country and taking part in the coming elections.
Boxed in by these developments, Musharraf has two options to survive: either co-opt the Right, which will compromise his continuing to support the war on terror, or extract support from the moderates that will ask him to relinquish one of his posts and let democracy be re-ushered into the country.
It seems Musharraf has decided to lean towards the Right. As a first step to please them, Pakistan has signed a peace deal with the Taliban. According to this peace deal, signed by Dr Fakr-I-Alam on behalf of Pakistan, and seven militants on behalf of the Taliban Shura (Advisory Council), Pakistani forces and local mujahideen and ulemas will stop attacking each other.
It seems Pakistan has also promised not to arrest Osama bin Laden. As reported by ABC News, "Pakistani officials told ABC News that bin Laden would be spared from being arrested if the dreaded terrorist decides to lead a peaceful life."
The troops freed as a result of the Pakistan-Taliban agreement may be used for two purposes: Either to contain the unrest in the Balochistan or undertake a Kargil type adventure against India.
The latter strategy is in the pipeline, if media reports are believed. According to India's military intelligence, the movement of 19 division and some brigades is threatening Indian positions in Gulmarg and Poonch.
A Kargil-type adventure is not a certainty, but is a possibility. India cannot ignore the repercussions of the troop movements and the Pakistan-Taliban peace deal.
Musharraf is finding the going very difficult. He needs to do something urgently to reassert his hold on power. Nothing would suit him more than a skirmish with India.
He is not a man given to irrational decisions, however, given a chance he would like to tread a safer route to ensure his survival. The meeting between him and the Indian Prime Minister on the sidelines of the NAM summit in Havana was a chance for India and Pakistan to reach some kind of deal on Kashmir.
There was no new assurance from Musharraf on restraining cross-border terror, though the joint statement recalled commitments made in previous documents from 2004 to 2005.
On Jammu and Kashmir, the joint statement said the two leaders had useful discussions and there was a 'need to build on convergences and narrow down divergences'. If the General is not able to satisfy his home constituency on progress on Kashmir issue, adventurism could become his main escape route.
For India, this is the time to strive for a democratic Pakistan. For too long India has debated the trade-offs between dealing with a dictator-a one point reference like the King of Nepal and democratically elected rulers. Experience suggests that a democratic neighborhood is better suited to India's long term interests.
The Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, formed by political rivals Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, has started gaining ground in the Pakistan. Its high time India attempted to strengthen democracy in Pakistan, notwithstanding its principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of its neighbors.
To strengthen democracy in Pakistan, India might take a clue from American democracy promotion efforts. America has allocated specific funds to promote democracy in Iran by training opposition leaders and trying to bring a regime change there.
It has been interpreted as interference in internal affairs of Iran by some, but promoting democracy has more or less come to be accepted as a universal norm in the liberal world.
Besides, India needs to raise the issue of democracy and the coming elections in Pakistan in every international forum be it the United Nations General Assembly or the Commonwealth. A democratic Pakistan is in the interests of India and South Asia and the entire world.
_______________
Indian wounds reopened by Musharraf's memoirs
By Y.P. Rajesh (yes guess who's not writing this article our lovely Pam)
Reuters
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; 6:12 AM
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The memoirs of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have reopened old wounds in neighboring India and reinforced perceptions of the military ruler as a man who cannot be trusted.
Officials declined to comment immediately on the memoirs, published on Monday, but privately bridled at his criticism of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's sincerity and flexibility in pursuing the peace process between the neighbors.
They said the timing of the comments, written in June but published barely a week after Singh and Musharraf held a friendly meeting in Cuba, was unfortunate.
Analysts were also damning on Tuesday in their assessment of "In the Line of Fire."
"The book is full of chest-thumping machismo and self-aggrandizement," said Chidanand Rajghatta, the Washington-based foreign editor of the Times of India newspaper.
"Musharraf seems unrepentant about most things that matter in India, be it Kargil, terrorism or infiltration."
India accuses Pakistan of arming and training militants and sending them across the border to fight New Delhi's rule in disputed Kashmir.
The scars of a 1999 conflict in the northern Kashmir region of Kargil also still run deep in India, which blames Musharraf for pushing in separatist militants backed by Pakistani troops to seize mountain heights in an act of unprovoked aggression.
In his book, Musharraf described the operation as a military success for Pakistan, admitted for the first time that Pakistani troops were involved but maintained they did not cross a military ceasefire line.
Raking up the conflict again seven years later has only reopened old wounds.
Jaswant Singh, foreign minister in India's previous Hindu nationalist-led government at the time of Kargil, called Musharraf's version of events "incredible."
"Quite often, when you occupy high office, the distinction between fiction and fact, gets obliterated. This is fictional," Singh told the Times Now news channel.
"UNREPENTANT MILITARY ADVENTURISM"
"In the Line of Fire" was due to be available across India on Tuesday and book stores in New Delhi said they had been flooded by enquiries. But excerpts have been widely published.
Musharraf said the United States had threatened to bomb Pakistan if it did not support its war on terror but also boasted of the money which his army had earned in rewards for handing over senior members of al Qaeda.
"It seems the whole thing about being an ally in the war on terror and his peace moves is more out of convenience than conviction," Rajghatta said, adding that the book as a whole raised serious questions about Pakistan's leader.
"It reeks of unrepentant military adventurism and Washington, New Delhi and Kabul have to note that."
An Indian atomic energy official said the Pakistani president's claim that India's uranium enrichment program could be based on a Pakistani centrifuge design was laughable.
In a tongue-in-cheek editorial, the Indian Express newspaper said Musharraf could not be accused of being short on words.
"Now that the general has been there, done that ... it's the perfect time for him to head back home and turn his attention to things somewhat more substantial," it said.
"Like actually cracking down on the jehadi camps in his backyard. It could make a great bestseller some day."
________________
Musharraf's book infuriates India
Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent
September 27, 2006
HOPES for an improvement in relations between New Delhi and Islamabad appeared doomed last night as scornful Indian officials considered the contents of President Pervez Musharraf's memoir and the Pakistani ruler blundered into repeated faux pas.
In a stark reversal of the optimism following the Indo-Pakistani talks in Havana 10 days ago, promising co-operation on terrorism, Indian officials and commentators denounced the book and lambasted General Musharraf for implying that India, like his own country, is involved with terrorist groups.
"The man is nuts," said a senior commentator in New Delhi. "Talk about a bull in a china shop."
Adding to the ferment was speculation about the length of the President's absence from Pakistan on his trip to the US, and resentment in Islamabad that his book In the Line of Fire was launched in New York, rather than at home.
General Musharraf is accompanied on his trip by an entourage of more than 90 officials, including cabinet members, and the cost is said to be astronomical. Critics say the trip is a book promotion tour, with one dubbing it "royalties before loyalties".
Having won in Havana the understanding of India's respected Prime Minister Manmohan Singh -- at some personal political cost to the Indian leader - General Musharraf embarrassed him yesterday by suggesting the agreement on terrorism was as much a test for India as it was for Pakistan - an apparent reference to claims that India is fomenting unrest in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.
"Musharraf's sound bite is as good as calling India a sponsor of terrorism," The Economic Times said yesterday. "The statement is sure to anger the (Indian) Government as well as the sceptics of the deal, who have been alleging a paradigm shift in the approach towards Pakistan on terrorism."
Certainly it will do nothing to help Dr Singh sell the Havana accord to the many critics who have emerged in the past 10 days, and there is every chance it could sound its death knell.
The Pakistani ruler's book is causing anger and dismay in New Delhi, and seems sure to damage hopes for an improvement in relations that would assist the global war on terror.
For example, the book portrays the Kargil conflict between Pakistan and India in 1999 - which was a military disaster for Islamabad and for General Musharraf, who was the army chief at the time - as Pakistan's finest hour.
Kargil brought the two South Asian neighbours to the brink of nuclear war, but in his book General Musharraf claims a "favourable" military situation for his country was lost only because of mishandling by then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whom he later deposed in a military coup.
Just about everything he says in the book about Kargil would probably be better left unsaid if he were genuinely seeking a rapprochement with New Delhi.
"Considered purely in military terms," he writes, "the Kargil operations were a landmark in the history of the Pakistani army." And he dismisses the Indian successes as "media hype", saying: "India raised the level of some of its achievements to mythical proportions."
Former Indian national security adviser Brajdesh Mishra responded: "What the general has said is a tissue of lies. He and the Pakistani army were the aggressors: India retaliated, Pakistan was defeated, and Musharraf was forced to go back."
And there was fury in New Delhi over the book's claims that India had "filched" nuclear centrifuge designs through spies in the network surrounding the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, AQ Khan.
"In 1999, I started seeing the first signs of some suspicious activities by AQ Khan," the President writes. "Our investigations revealed that Khan had started his activities as far back as 1987, primarily with Iran. Khan was running a very personalised underground network of technology transfers around the world with his base in Dubai. There is strong possibility the genesis of the Indian uranium enrichment program may also have its roots in the Dubai-based network and could be a copy of the Pakistani centrifuge design."
This is hotly denied in New Delhi, with commentators noting that India is still working on its centrifuge enrichment program.
The book is sure to anger Pakistan's powerful neighbour, and officials in New Delhi wondered why a leader would "publish such controversial things when he is still in office".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20482985-2703,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment