text:
Showing All "Tilda Swinton" Posts
Feb 4th, 2014 20 Comments
[Originally posted on June 30th, 2010.]
A dear friend of mine and I used to have a SUPER INTELLIGENT, SOPHISTICATED, and NORMAL game called "People's Pussies," where we'd imagine what…   Read Story »
Apr 26th, 2013 10 Comments
Man, I cannot get enough of this clip! WHERE HAVE YOU GIF ALL MY LIFE? Please take a walk down last four days memory lane with me as we stroll past GIFs of all the wonderful stories we experienced…   Read Story »
Apr 25th, 2013 33 Comments
It can sometimes be disheartening to log into the day (that's what we call waking up, right?) (because we all wake up and immediately pull our laptops into bed with us?) and see that what it has to…   Read Story »
Apr 18th, 2013 9 Comments
Sleepy Ms. MOMA (Tilda Swinton) is on the cover of W Magazine this month looking like a beautiful weirdo. -WMagazine
Disney is going to release a new Star Wars film every year starting 2015. And…   Read Story »
Mar 25th, 2013 8 Comments
Tilda Swinton began her year-long public art performance at the Museum of Modern Art this past Saturday, spending the entire day in a glass box. She's going to do it about a half-dozen more times…   Read Story »
Feb 27th, 2013 10 Comments
Doctor Who TARDIS Fez? Doctor Who TARDIS Fez! -Technabob
'Celebrity Flirt Roulette' is really wonderful, you'll see. -TEAMCOCO
Ellen talks to the 'Hair Tutorial Gone Wrong' girl…   Read Story »
Apr 24th, 2012 9 Comments
A tumblr dedicated to the belief that Tilda Swinton and David Bowie are the same person, obviously. -TildaStardust
Oh, this is kind of sad. Not SAD sad, but, well, Alfonso Ribeiro (Carlton)…   Read Story »
Jan 12th, 2012 3 Comments
A mash-up of the creeptown trailer for We Need to Talk About Kevin and scenes from Home Alone, obviously. Fuller, go easy on the Internet.   Read Story »
Jun 30th, 2010 34 Comments
[Gabe Liedman is a stand-up comedian, and one half of the Gabe and Jenny comedy team with Jenny Slate. This week, he saw the movie I Am Love]
A dear friend of mine and I used to have a SUPER…   Read Story »
Mar 15th, 2010 177 Comments
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a bildungsroman (that's right, I've been to COLLEGE) about a man named Benjamin Button whose case is very curious. He is born as an old man, and as he ages he…   Read Story »


text:
Hello, I am really interested in obtaining Tillandsia air plants - Those little Bromeliads that need no soil and grow attached by the root to any host. I do not like the mossy or grassy looking ones. I like the bulbous, thick leaved ones that look interesting and have rich color. If you have any, please let me see. For swap, I can offer you one or more of these small plants: - Fully rooted approx 2" Echinopsis Barrel Cactus - Shipped bare root/No soil. Likes full afternoon sun - Spines turn reddish brown. Mature plant throws off lots of pups. Have over forty-three 2" plants + thirty-two smaller rooted pups. |
Follow-Up Postings:
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Please Note: Only registered members from the U.S. are able to post messages here (this may be indicated by the title of the forum. All exchanges not indicated otherwise are restricted to those living in the U.S.) If you are a member from an area mentioned above, please log in.
Return to the Bromeliad Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here

subset: commoncrawl


text:
'The Avengers' ensemble debuts to big overseas box office (+video)
'The Avengers' works thanks to the narrative of teamwork crafted by Joss Whedon. The film took in $185 million in the first weekend. The Avengers opens Friday in the US.
Abuquerque, N.M.
The news is grim – a team member has gone down, the worst is feared – and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and Captain America (Chris Evans) exchange pensive looks while, all around them, the agents of a super-spy agency called S.H.I.E.L.D. tend to their duties as an off-planet enemy force threatens the entire planet.
The scene, being filmed on an elevated set, was watched from a safe and ironic distance by Joss Whedon. "You know, you shouldn't worry too much," the director and co-writer of "The Avengers" reassured a visitor to the New Mexico set. "This kind of stuff happens here almost every day in the Marvel universe."
It does feel sometimes like Hollywood has become a digital factory dedicated to cosmic dangers and costumed heroes, but "The Avengers" is a special case even in this summer when Spider-Man and Batman will also be back in action on planet popcorn.
RECOMMENDED: Seven tales of everyday heroes
When "The Avengers" arrives in theaters on Friday it will represent an unprecedented Hollywood experiment – can the narrative threads from four film franchises come together to form a unified tapestry in a fifth, all-star franchise? (And by throwing in a couple of newer faces, can it even launch a sixth or seventh?)
Page 1 of 5


text:
Interns on Video: Daniel Bertalot
Who are these people? Where do they come from? What are they hoping to get? Videomaker Albert Sosa finds out in his new animated series on artworld interns.
Artist Daniel Bertalot graduated from Sam Houston State University. He interns at Lawndale art Center in Houston as Exhibitions Assistant.
also by Albert Sosa
- Interns on Video: Emilee Cooney, Auction Assistant - May 23rd, 2014
- Interns on Video: Chinelo Ikejimba - April 25th, 2014
- Interns on Video: Christina Macal - March 2nd, 2014


text:
Magic City Limousine & Sedan LLC's luxury vehicles charter clients in comfort and style. Professional and prompt chauffeurs helm executive sedans while passengers kick back and prep for business meetings or devise the pop geography quiz they'll be giving their pilots. Magic City offers luxury transportation to business events, proms, weddings, and airports, and has executive day coaches that can accommodate up to 30 passengers.
When licensed Triple G Moving technicians arrive for residential, commercial, and corporate moves, they bring the proper equipment to ensure that furniture, electronics, and taxidermal chia pets arrive intactly to their new destinations. The movers transport items big and small, working in teams to facilitate local- and long-distance relocations. Clients can also diminish the burden of moves with the company's packing and labeling services.
Since 1995, Touch of Class Limousine and Transport has served the Montgomery area with elegant transportation steered by courteous and professional chauffeurs. Accommodating up to eight passengers, the Stretch Dodge Magnum boasts temperature controls, mood lighting, three flat-screen color TVs with a DVD player, a stereo, and a CD player, as well as a privacy window and intercom to the driver ($195.50 for two hours). Two styles of Super Stretch Lincolns come with one or two entrances, the latter of which better allows for parking-lot conga lines ($195.50 for two hours). Bigger spenders can book a weekend outing in the H2 Hummer ($483 for three hours). With bars in all vehicles stocked with ice, napkins, soft drinks, and glasses, patrons will be ready to entertain with favorite beverages or toast on-board I Spy champions.
Sedans, shiny black SUVs, bouncing party buses—the sleek fleet of CSI Ground transports all passengers in style. Whether clients are trekking to the airport, business meetings, or bachelorette parties, chauffeurs pull up in the best vehicle for the job, relieving them of the stress caused by navigating traffic, searching for parking, and trying to drive and do the electric slide at the same time.
Up to 250 vehicles can fit into the lot at Alabama Airport Parking while they await their owners' return to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. The outfit, converted from a three-decade-old rental-car operation in 2004, safely tends to customers' vehicles while they're on holiday or scouring planes for SkyMall back issues to complete their collections. In addition to keeping cars safe and sound, the attendants perform extra services for additional fees, such as car washes and detailing so that cars are fresh for customers' returns. The company also runs a parking-points program that awards frequent customers with points that can add up to free car washes or parking.
Birmingham Bicycle Company stocks name brand bicycles including Scott, Pinarello, and Jamis, along with a variety of gear including clothing, helmets, racks, and sunglasses. The crew all cycle in their free time, so they can help customers locate the type of equipment they need for racing or leisure. When not selling pedals and helping with bike fitting, the shop sponsors weekly rides for cyclists of all skill levels; check their Facebook page for the schedule.


text:
Amoozin' But Confoozin
This page has been viewed 23 times this month, and 1338 times total.
Columbia Pictures Corporation
Sid Marcus
Dave Fleischer
John McLeish
- Columbia Pictures Corporation
- Featuring: Lil' Abner, Mammy Yokum.
- Directed By Sid Marcus.
- Produced By Dave Fleischer.
- Written By John McLeish.
- Originally Released in 1944.
- TechniColor
Watch Amoozin' But Confoozin On Video:
You can watch this cartoon today on your computer. Just click below to start viewing "Amoozin' But Confoozin" online now.
Thank you for viewing Amoozin' But Confoozin on video.
Amoozin' But Confoozin Video
This material is neither supplied or hosted by The Big Cartoon DataBase. If you are having problems viewing this video, you must contact the content provider, NOT BCDB- there is nothing we can do to fix video streaming problems from another host.
If this link is to copyrighted material, and you are the copyright holder and you wish this link removed, please contact us and we will be happy to accommodate your request.
Submit Additional Information:
Do you have anything to add to this page? Have we made any mistakes... or do you ahve any additional information about Amoozin' But Confoozin? If so, we would love to hear from you. Please send us a quick note with your additions or corrections to this page, and we will make the corrections as soon as possible!
Report Errors / Submit Additional Information
Report Errors / Submit Additional Information


text:
Trailers: Two Best-Foreign-Language Contenders
I was at the Egyptian Theater Saturday for "A Dangerous Method," which was good, and saw the usual slew of trailers. These are the ones I made mental notes to see.
"In Darkness," directed by Agnieszka Holland ("Europa, Europa," "Three Colors: Blue"), and Poland's official candidate for the Best Foreign Language Oscar at the 2012 Academy Awards:
"Footnote," written and directed by Joseph Cedar, winner of best screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival, and Israel's official candidate for the Best Foreign Language Oscar at the 2012 Academy Awards:
It's that time of year. For the next three months, the only good new thing in U.S. theaters will be the 2011 foreign language leftovers. Which are often the best movies of the year.
UPDATE: Both films have made the best-foreign-language-film shortlist.
Twitter: @ErikLundegaard
Tweets by @ErikLundegaard10 Best Movies of 2014
11-20: Powerful
21-30: Worthy
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
31-45: Not bad
Whitey: United States of America v. James J. Bulger
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared
46-56: Iffy
Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia
57-77: Bummer
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
A Million Ways to Die in the West
Transformers: Age of Extinction
10 Worst Movies of 2014
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1


text:
Welcome! Failte
Known affectionately as the Blairbeg Hall, Glenurquhart Public Hall is a fine Edwardian building in the heart of the Loch Ness-side community of Drumnadrochit and Lewiston. Tweeting as @LochNessEvents
To see what's on at the Hall, look at the Calendar.
Sign up for our occasional newsletter here.
How to book your party, wedding or conference: Booking The Hall.
Go green, save money and share a lift to the Hall via Highland Liftshare.


text:
By KEITH TAYLOR, email@example.com
Alex Poythress began his collegiate career with a bang.
The former Tennessee Mr. Basketball scored 20 or more points in four of his first five games at Kentucky and reached double figures in eight of his first 10 games. Despite the fast start, Poythress struggled to regain the same level of consistency he enjoyed during the first month in his first season with the Wildcats.
He averaged 11.4 points and 6.2 rebounds per game and ranked second on the team in both categories. He scored 20 or more points in four consecutive games, becoming the first Kentucky freshman since Dwight Anderson during the 1978-79 season to achieve the 20-point plateau. His early numbers signaled a jump to the NBA at the end of the season, but his stock eventually plunged, and Poythress opted to return to Kentucky for a second season.
Although his draft status played a role in his decision to return, Kentucky's disappointing 21-12 season that ended with a loss to Robert Morris in the opening round of the NIT, left a sour taste in Poythress' mouth, prompting the Clarksville, Tenn., power forward to stay for at least one more season.
Poythress has already put last season in his rear-view mirror and isn't looking back.
"Last year was last year," he said. "We're just trying to focus on this year and do great things. I've already put last year behind me. It is what it is. You can't change the past."
He's also not giving a second thought on his decision to return to Kentucky.
"I have no regrets," he said. "I made my decision and I told myself I wouldn't look back at it."
During the summer, Poythress participated in the Kevin Durant Skills Academy and spent more time dribbling the basketball than sharpening his shooting and rebounding skills. He also spent time on campus for a couple of months.
"I worked on my ball-handling," he said. "I've been working on my mid-range game, and I think it's coming along real good. I've been trying to add (those skills) to my package. I've been spending a lot of time working on individual stuff. It's coming along. We did a lot of individual workouts, and I'm just trying to become an all-around better player."
The growing pains Poythress endured as a freshman served as a learning experience for him.
"Sometimes when things don't go your way, you've got to fight through adversity and cope with it," he said. "It helped me a lot and helped me mature as a player, helped me grow up and mature. I have a different mentality going into this year. Sometimes you just need a different mentality, a different mind set. I need to be more aggressive out there and not be as passive. I've matured a lot from the last year. I've got the mentality I need to improve and get better."


text:
Bugzilla – Bug 6394
erroneous error messages after a failed create
Last modified: 2008-10-15 09:32:40
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
"no vm?" is logged after a failed create. This is coming from the new (as of tp2.0) object cache + expiration system. It's ultimately a cosmetic error since it does not impede any functionality, but obviously the service should not be producing log statements that are annoying/unhelpful.
Committed: Fix for Bug #6392 Fix for Bug #6394 Fix for Bug #6416 Erroneous errors involving destruction coupled with status queries. All the same cause, missing removal step in the workspace service object cache manager.


text:
Aside from the EGR Yellocake Night Racer, Hyundai will also bring the Legato Concept at the upcoming SEMA Show 2013. Set to debut on November 5, the sleek, silver coupe is based on the Genesis model. The car's body kit will be provided by ARK, including the front… [Read more]
Blog Archives
Apple Expected to Sell Around 10M 'iWatch' in First Year
Based on the latest survey conducted by Piper Jaffray, Apple's rumored 'iWatch' could have a penetration rate of four percent among iPhone users. With an estimated user base of 293 million, this could equate to 5 million to 10 million sales in the first year. However,… [Read more]
Apple Gears Up iTunes Radio for UK, Canada, and Australia Next Year
It was reported that Apple is set to expand their iTunes Radio to English-speaking countries outside of United States early next year. Other than streaming and promoting upcoming albums, Apple hopes to use iTunes Radio to bring in sizable revenues through advertising. This expansion… [Read more]
NTT DoCoMo Blames Flight of Subscribers to Limited iPhone Stocks
At the hype of Apple's iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C, NTT DoCoMo suffered its biggest subscriber loss last month. The largest Japanese carrier blames such mishap to the supply constraints of the latest flagship phone. Bloomberg reported that the telecom lost 66,000 customers in September… [Read more]
Recent Apple Job Post Hints at Canadian iTunes Radio
According to a recent post at Jobs at Apple, the company is looking for an "iTunes Canada Music Programmer", which hints that the iPhone maker will be releasing the service in the said country. Based on the job description, Apple is looking for a Toronto-based candidate who can… [Read more]


text:
By George, he's got it! The new British royal prince, that is. And what little George Alexander Louis has is a first name shared with many other famous people who came before him.
The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use.blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
Jump to Content
Search OAC
Browse Institutions
Browse Collections
Browse Map
About OAC
What is OAC?
> Home
> Stanford University
> University Archives
Collection Guide
∞ http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt6q2nf77x
Collection Title:
Collection Number:
Get Items:
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar [videorecording] V0353
No online items
Contact Stanford University::University Archives
View entire collection guide
(53.64 Kb)
Search this collection
Entire Collection Guide
Online Items
Collection Overview
Table of contents
Sixteen lectures on 8 DVDs comprise a full-length course presented at the 1987 Linguistic Institute held at Stanford University.
8.0 optical disc(s) (DVD)
All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California 94304-6064. Consent is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission from the copyright owner. Such permission must be obtained from the copyright owner, heir(s) or assigns. See: http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/pubserv/permissions.html.
This collection is open for research.
Collection Overview
Collection Details
General note
General note
Information about Access
Ownership & Copyright
Cite As
Description of the Collection
Collection Contents


text:
The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video. Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!
A Tennessee man has sued his county for promoting Christianity, claiming officials rejected his request to post a display on church-state separation in the same courthouse where a Ten Commandments plaque has been displayed for years.
The suit claims Johnson County commissioners in June rejected Ralph Stewart's bid to hang two posters at the Mountain City courthouse's "public forum" area, one titled "The Ten Commandments Are Not the Foundation of American Law."
The plaque is part of a history of law exhibit.
The suit was filed Thursday for Stewart by Americans United for Separation of Church and State in U.S. District Court in Greeneville.
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Are you seeking answers in life? Are you hurting? Are you facing a difficult situation?
Find peace with God, discover more about God or send us your prayer request.
Call The 700 Club Prayer Center at 1 (800) 823-6053, 24 hours a day.
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.
CBN News is a national/international, nonprofit news organization that provides programming by cable, satellite, and the Internet, 24-hours a day. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.
Sign up for the CBN News Dispatch and receive CBN News Reports in your inbox each day.Subscribe Now >>
Add CBN News, articles, latest videos and blog feeds to your favorite RSS reader. Subscribe Now >>
E-mail us your news tips, story ideas, questions & comments. Contact Us >>


text:
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday!
mini-V What will you celebrate?
Adult daycare for the kid inside you.
Happy Birthday Parker!!!! I hope you have a Magical Force Filled Day!
WHAFTFCOL now who wants a cookie!?!Copy Right of S&B LLC.SITTM... We have an App for that!
Yeah, I like Ninja Rubber Duckies FCOL!
It's cutie Parker's birthday?!
Happy Birthday to you!!!!! I hope you get to have the most fun day ever.
Dreams Really Do Come True
Adam ~ A Proud D23 Charter Member!
Thanks T for starting this thead and for the card and $ you sent to Parker! He was so excited when the mail came yesterday! He had a fabulous birthday if I do say so myself!
Thanks for everyone's birthday wishes!
Belated Happy Birthday to Parker!
I'm glad you had a great day!
"Most of my life I have done what I wanted to do. I have had fun on the job.I have never been able to confine that fun to office hours." ~ Walt Disney


text:
Get the Flash Video Player to see this video.
Producing real money from a transparent envelope is a magical delight! The envelope looks so innocent that there couldn't be any room for trickery, but it still enables you to perform this extremely baffling illusion. Keep the props in your bag or pocket, and you'll always be ready to perform. Use currency from your own country - dollars, pounds, Euros, etc.


text:
14 January 2013
Responding to the Tory-led government's proposals to change the state pension, Unite, Britain's biggest union, says the changes should be financed out of progressive taxation, not by reducing the modest state benefits of average earners.
Unite assistant general secretary Gail Cartmail said:
"Unite will be looking carefully at the proposals and small print because experience shows us you can't trust the coalition with our welfare. The government has given no indication that there is more money available for the state pension. This means for every winner there will be a loser.
"If the government wants to improve the state pension of those who fare worst at present, then it should be financed out of progressive taxation, not by reducing the modest state benefits of average earners who have a full career.
"These proposals could present real dangers to workers in the private sector. The new system will involve higher national insurance for employees currently in contracted-out defined benefit pension schemes, and higher national insurance for their employers as well. There is a danger employers will seek to claw back the cost by reducing the quality of their current pension scheme. The end result could mean any gain in state benefits will be wiped out by increased costs to employees in the private sector."
The government's proposals on the state pension will be published in a white paper. Reports indicate the government will be proposing implementation in 2017.


text:
Read Customer Reviews
Please note that embroidery orders not qualify for the free shipping offer.
Please note: If color/size selection does not display then item is currently unavailable.
The Carhartt Flame-Resistant Traditional Long-Sleeve Mock Turtleneck will keep you safe and warm on the job. Carhartt's Flame-Resistant Long-Sleeve Mock Turtleneck is great to layer or can be worn alone. Made of 6.5-ounce FR knit, a blend of 55% modacrylic and 45% cotton, it features a rib-knit mock neck collar and cuffs, side-seamed construction to minimize twisting and a left arm logo label.


text:
Welcome To CruiseCritic.com
Stay on CruiseCritic.com
Go to Cruise Critic UK
Close X
Subscribe today
Get Cruise Critic in your inbox
Sign up!
Your Ultimate Cruise Guide
All Cruise Reviews
Cabin Reviews
Cruisers' Choice Awards
Editors' Picks Awards
Excursion Reviews
Member Reviews
Port Reviews
River Cruise Reviews
Luxury Cruise Reviews
Find a Cruise
All Cruise Deals
Last Minute Cruises
Caribbean Cruise Deals
Cheapest Cruises
Price Drop
All Destinations
Alaska Cruises
Australia & New Zealand
Bahamas Cruises
Canada & New England
Caribbean Cruises
Caribbean - Eastern
Caribbean - Southern
Caribbean - Western
Europe Cruises
Europe - Baltic & Northern
Europe - British Isles & Western
Europe - Eastern Mediterranean
Europe - Western Mediterranean
Mexican Riviera
Panama Canal
How to Cruise
First Time Cruisers
Cruise Styles
Live Chats
Meet & Mingle
Member Reviews
Message Boards
Roll Calls
Cruise News
Cruise News Archive
> Will Russian Submarines Off East Coast Affect Cruises?
Date Published: August 5, 2009
Cruise News
Will Russian Submarines Off East Coast Affect Cruises?
(6:26 p.m. EDT) -- Today's news reports that a pair of nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines is lurking about in international waters some 200 miles off America's Eastern Seaboard have indeed made for splashy headlines. Beyond asking why the subs are enjoying such relative proximity in the first place, cruise travelers are eager to know whether their presence will impact voyages to and from the East Coast.
The short answer? There's little chance that the Russian submarines will have any effect on cruise traffic. Coast Guard spokesman Lieutenant Commander Chris O'Neil was not able to comment specifically on cruise ship navigation but did tell Cruise Critic today that that submarines operate in international waters all of the time -- which means these twins are neither an unusual nor challenging obstacle to cruise ship captains.
Michael Crye, executive vice president of Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), which represents 24 major cruise lines, offered a similar assessment.
"Subs generally operate completely submerged or on the surface, and if they're on the surface they are easily detectable by radar," Crye says. "United States military vessels, at the least the surface military vessels, provide more of an obstacle than submersed vessels."
He adds, "Under the rights of navigation, military ships have the right to innocent passage throughout the world. Russian submarines in general have the right to operate in and around the offshore waters. These submarines are likely to be tracked by United States military vessels -- [surface] as well as submarines."
As far as avoiding collisions, Crye, who spent 24 years in the Coast Guard, tells us that there are "rules of the road" every licensed mariner knows and understands. Ships' captains are responsible for giving one another ample room. Compass quadrants determine who has the right of way. In most cases, a vessel approaching your starboard bow has the right of way, though there are exceptions (for example, vessels that are not sailing under their own power pretty much always have the right of way, and sailboats generally take precedence over larger boats).
As for submarines, responsibility again falls to the captain to operate safely by letting other mariners in the area know a sub's position (and when it's coming back up to the surface).
We also today touched base with
Carnival Cruise Lines
, a major player on the East Coast with ships departing from cities all along the seaboard; a spokesperson for the line tells us that there have been no delays or itinerary changes and that ship traffic is proceeding as normal.
--by Melissa Baldwin Paloti, Managing Editor
Fan Cruise Critic on Facebook!
Follow Cruise Critic on Twitter!
Cruise News
Cruise Agencies
Cruise Deals
© 1995 - 2015, The Independent Traveler, Inc. All rights reserved.
This file may be downloaded for personal use only.
Other copying or reproduction is expressly prohibited.
About Us
Editorial Disclaimer
Site Map
UK Cruises
Thank You For Signing Up!
Please Note:
To ensure delivery of your free e-letters, please add firstname.lastname@example.com to your address book.
We're committed to protecting your privacy and will not rent or sell your e-mail address. By proceeding, you agree to our
Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.
Check prices for the following:


text:
Let Pix'All Photography N' More turn your wedding moments into vivid mementos. Their team of wedding and portrait photographers create unique portraits of your event at packages that suit your budget.
5/5 stars 11 reviews · 7 credentials
Rachelle Shalom is among the professional photographers who offer quality and creative photography for your special events. Let her help you capture the beauty of your big day.
5/5 stars 3 reviews · 4 credentials
Hire photographers from Stacy Dunaway Photography if you need professionals who specialize in capturing memorable moments. They also specialize in senior photos and child portraits, among others.
5/5 stars 4 reviews · 5 credentials · Licensed in WA
Capture your most special moments by hiring documentary wedding photographers like Linda Meacham. Aside from wedding photography, she also offers family portraits, event coverage and more.
5/5 stars 1 review · 6 credentials
Jenny Sanchez is a contemporary wedding photographer who also takes photos of models, families, children and more. Her wedding photography services aim to capture natural-looking images.
5/5 stars 3 reviews · 5 credentials · $65-1600 / hour
Crystal Madsen is one you can count on if you want beautiful wedding pictures or high school senior portraits. She works hard to offer unique modern photos for you.
5/5 stars 1 review · 6 credentials · $250 / hour
If you want images that are full of action and emotion on your special day, then choose a professional wedding photographer like Dan Eakin. He uses a photojournalistic style.
3 credentials
Megan Krape is a professional wedding photographer who also takes photos of babies, pets, engagements, families, couples and more. Her wedding photography package includes modern, unique and artistic images.
4 credentials
Markus Burns Photography creates playfully elegant images that reflect the timeless beauty and joy of your special day. Their top rated photographers specialize in wedding and editorial photography.
3 credentials
In need of a reliable photographer for weddings and other events? Rachel Taylor offers distinct photography for weddings, engagements, family gatherings, maternity and baby shoots, and more.
4 credentials
Cherish those special moments with affordable wedding photography from Gary Peterson. He is a portrait wedding photographer who offers wedding photography, bridal portraits, portfolios and more.
3 credentials
Let Cameron Glass capture the precious moments of your big day. He specializes in modern, stylish, and edgy wedding photography services. He has been providing professional images since 2005.
6 credentials
Rachelle Flatt is one of the best wedding photographers who provide free consultations. She also does family and newborn portraits, senior pictures, special event photos, and more.
5 credentials · Licensed in WA
Beautiful Photo Studio has some of the top wedding photographers who travel to your location. They also provide children, commercial, newborn, family and maternity photography, among others.
5/5 stars 1 review · 4 credentials · $125-150 / hour
Work with one of the top photographers from 2ee's Photography to create a unique and beautiful love story through photographs. They offer full-day wedding coverage with a disc of all images included.
3 credentials
For quality studio and on-location shoots, check out Haute Pink Photography. They are one of the photography studios that specialize in creating beautiful wedding and lifestyle pictures.
3 credentials
Conner Allen provides creative photography services for your wedding. Packages include hours of shooting as well as photos of the family, preparation, ceremony, couple and more.
3 credentials · $30-50 / hour
Get reasonably priced wedding photography packages that include printable copyrights from Kay Beach. This weddings photographer captures traditional and unique shots of your special day.
1 credential · $150 / hour
Eric Strate is among the best photographers in town who offer affordable photography prices. He captures sports, children, senior and wedding photos, and more using quality equipment.
3 credentials


text:
Tiger Woods Impact on Golf
Tiger Woods has been the face of golf through nearly two decades as a professional. No player garners more attention, negative or positive, than the former Stanford star and the golf world is quickly going to have to come to grips with what to do without him.
Tiger turned professional in 1996 and has 106 professional wins with 14 major victories, but since 2009 he only has 11 victories and has won no major championships. His game has been on the decline since that time and now can not seem to stay healthy long enough to compete.
As this week develops, golf is bracing itself for the Player's Championship and what should be a lead in to one of their top tournaments of the year and talking about the top contenders for the week, sports columnists are focusing on whether or not Tiger is going to be there. This is no slight to Woods as he deserves all the accolades he is receiving as one of the best golfers to ever play the game. However, at a certain point you must begin to question what will happen when Tiger finally says no more or more likely Tiger's back says no more.
Rory McIlroy is the current leader on top of the world golf rankings followed by Adam Scott. Woods is ranked in the 10th spot. McIlroy is a clean cut young face at the top of the leaderboard and Adam Scott is the 34 year old Aussie playing some of the best golf in the world. Both men deserve the applause from the golf community, but as long as Tiger's presence lingers around the golf world, neither will ever be the centerpiece of the golf world anytime in the next coming days.
Tiger's presence took the golf world by storm and grew the popularity of the spot nationwide. However, as we have seen with the decline in NASCAR recently, American fans can be a fickle bunch. Before Tiger is officially done, golf needs to find a new golfer to hang their hat on. If they are unable to do so, they will be left with no major superstars in a time where the sports world revolves around them. The NFL has Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and many others. MLB has Justin Verlander, Mike Trout, David Price and many others. The NHL has Alex Ovechkin, Sydney Crosby, and more. Golf has Tiger - for now.
If golf doesn't make a change soon in their marketing efforts and bring a superstar or two forward, all the progress of the last twenty years could be lost with a fickle American fan base. Instead of focusing on writing pieces on the demise of Tiger or the "will he, won't he" be ther stories, the lead stories will be about the actual golf being played on the course.


text:
Beyond the obvious political obstacles with that kind of heavy-handed regulation, Bloomberg missed a bigger story. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have now agreed to begin implementing what's called "Common Core" curriculum standards — partly because of being pushed to do so by President Obama's Race to the Top education grant program. In a country with 13,000 turf-conscious local school districts, this common-sense approach to setting strong national standards to meet the challenge of global competition is revolutionary. It also promises a potential revolution in the textbook industry, both print and digital. A textbook that becomes a favorite of education officials charged with implementing the Common Core standards could achieve unheard-of scale and sales volumes. The same is true for high-tech teaching products, which is why venture capitalists are starting to warm to an industry they once shunned because sales had to be made one by one to states or even school districts in a highly politicized process.
The emergence of digital publishing combined with the adoption of the Common Core is going to upend a big, important industry. The right story would take us inside the jockeying among traditional publishers and startup entrepreneurs to get in on the potential Common Core gold rush. Which bureaucrats are making the Common Core decisions about which learning products to adopt? What kind of lobbying and political pressure has been unleashed at what levels to influence these choices? Apple stories have glitzy appeal, but what's going on behind closed doors to determine how and what our kids will learn when the revolutionary Common Core is implemented is the real story.
4. Businessweek's revival:
Although I wasn't keen on that Bloomberg View essay in the Feb. 6 issue of Businessweek, I was stunned in reading this issue, as I have been repeatedly in reading other recent issues, at how terrific the magazine has become under its new Bloomberg owners and editor Josh Tyrangiel. I second Jack Shafer's December appraisal: It has become, for my money, the best business magazine published today and one of the two or three best magazines, period. If anything, its fault is that, because it's a weekly, there's so much good stuff in each issue that it leaves the reader feeling guilty he didn't get to it all (though there are smart bottom-line summaries at the end of each piece to help deal with that).
The cover story of that Feb. 6 issue was an exquisite blow-by-blow account of how hard it is to merge two giant airlines (Continental and United) because there are thousands of surprisingly complicated decisions to be made—such as whose coffee and uniforms to keep or figuring out how to cut over to common reservations and flight-information systems while still operating 24/7 around the world. Reporter Drake Bennett made the important but mundane come to life in a way that reminded me of the quote attributed to McDonald's founder Ray Kroc celebrating "the kind of mind that can see beauty in a hamburger bun."
Inside the same issue there were at least a dozen other stories I wanted to read, from the "wild battle to overpay for the bankrupt Los Angeles Dodgers" to "So Long, Wal-Mart Greeter."
This kind of transformation doesn't just happen. Someone needs to do as thorough and as page-turning a piece on the magazine's resurgence as Businessweek itself would do. There is a lot more to remaking a magazine than investing in talent. It takes attitude, discipline and a constant visualization of the reader—a relentless focus on whom you're writing for and what you're trying to deliver.
How did Tyrangiel put all that together in an age when print is supposed to be dying? And is his reborn product making money? Are advertisers ponying up? Are circulation revenues on the rise? How is the magazine keeping itself from being victimized by the Web—or is it? How does its progress compare with a parallel effort to beef up Bloomberg's long-suffering cable-TV network? What's the difference? And how does all of this fit into the larger strategy of the Bloomberg company?


text:
Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in General Nonfiction
Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award
Winner of the Lionel Gelber Prize for Best Foreign Affairs Book
Winner of the Asia Society's Bernard Schwartz Book Award
Winner of the Cundill Prize for Historical Literature
Winner of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations' Robert H. Ferrell Book Prize
One of the Best Books of the Year at • The Economist • Financial Times • The New Republic • The Washington Post • Kirkus Reviews •
A New York Times Notable Book
This magnificent history provides the first full account of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's secret support for Pakistan in 1971 as it committed shocking atrocities in Bangladesh—which led to war between India and Pakistan, shaped the fate of Asia, and left major strategic consequences for the world today.
Drawing on previously unheard White House tapes, recently declassified documents, and his own extensive investigative reporting, Gary Bass uncovers an astonishing unknown story of superpower brinkmanship, war, scandal, and conscience. Revelatory, authoritative, and compulsively readable, The Blood Telegram is a thrilling chronicle of a pivotal chapter in American foreign policy.
Archer Blood, the United States' consul general in Dacca, was a gentlemanly diplomat raised in Virginia, a World War II navy veteran in the upswing of a promising Foreign Service career after several tours overseas. He was earnest and precise, known to some of his more unruly subordinates at the U.S. consulate as a good, conventional man.
He had come to like his posting to this impoverished, green, and swampy land. But outside of the consulate's grimy offices, in the steamy heat, the city was dying. Night after night, Blood heard the gunshots. On the night of March 25, 1971, the Pakistan army had begun a relentless crackdown on Bengalis, all across what was then East Pakistan and is today an independent Bangladesh. Untold thousands of people were shot, bombed, or burned to death in Dacca alone. Blood had spent that grim night on the roof of his official residence, watching as tracer bullets lit up the sky, listening to clattering machine guns and thumping tank guns. There were fires across the ramshackle city. He knew the people in the deathly darkness below. He liked them. Many of the civilians facing the bullets were professional colleagues; some were his friends.
It was, Blood and his staffers thought, their job to relay as much of this as they possibly could back to Washington. Witnessing one of the worst atrocities of the Cold War, Blood's consulate documented in horrific detail the slaughter of Bengali civilians: an area the size of two dozen city blocks that had been razed by gunfire; two newspaper office buildings in ruins; thatch-roofed villages in flames; specific targeting of the Bengalis' Hindu minority.
The U.S. consulate gave detailed accounts of the killings at Dacca University, ordinarily a leafy, handsome enclave. At the wrecked campus, professors had been hauled from their homes to be gunned down. The provost of the Hindu dormitory, a respected scholar of English, was dragged out of his residence and shot in the neck. Blood listed six other faculty members "reliably reported killed by troops," with several more possibly dead. One American who had visited the campus said that students had been "mowed down" in their rooms or as they fled, with a residence hall in flames and youths being machine-gunned.1
"At least two mass graves on campus," Blood cabled. "Stench terrible." There were 148 corpses in one of these mass graves, according to the workmen forced to dig them. An official in the Dacca consulate estimated that at least five hundred students had been killed in the first two days of the crackdown, almost none of them fighting back. Blood reckoned that the rumored toll of a thousand dead at the university was "exaggerated, although nothing these days is inconceivable." After the massacre, he reported that an American eyewitness had seen an empty army truck arriving to get rid of a "tightly packed pile of approximately twenty five corpses," the last of many such batches of human remains.2
This was, Blood knew, the last thing his superiors in Washington wanted to hear. Pakistan was an ally—a military dictatorship, but fiercely anticommunist. Blood detailed how Pakistan was using U.S. weapons—tanks, jet fighters, gigantic troop transport airplanes, jeeps, guns, ammunition—to crush the Bengalis. In one of the awkward alignments of the Cold War, President Richard Nixon had lined up the democratic United States with this authoritarian government, while the despots in the Soviet Union found themselves standing behind democratic India.
Nixon and Henry Kissinger, the brilliant White House national security advisor, were driven not just by such Cold War calculations, but a starkly personal and emotional dislike of India and Indians. Nixon enjoyed his friendship with Pakistan's military dictator, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, known as Yahya, who was helping to set up the top secret opening to China. The White House did not want to be seen as doing anything that might hint at the breakup of Pakistan—no matter what was happening to civilians in the east wing of Pakistan.
The onslaught would continue for months. The Dacca consulate stubbornly kept up its reporting. But, Blood later recalled, his cables were met with "a deafening silence." He was not allowed to protest to the Pakistani authorities. He ratcheted up his dispatches, sending in a blistering cable tagged "Selective Genocide," urging his bosses to speak out against the atrocities being committed by the Pakistani military. The White House staff passed this up to Kissinger, who paid no heed. Then on April 6, two weeks into the slaughter, Blood and almost his entire consulate sent in a telegram formally declaring their "strong dissent"—a total repudiation of the policy that they were there to carry out. That cable—perhaps the most radical rejection of U.S. policy ever sent by its diplomats—blasted the United States for silence in the face of atrocities, for not denouncing the quashing of democracy, for showing "moral bankruptcy" in the face of what they bluntly called genocide.3
This book is about how two of the world's great democracies—the United States and India—faced up to one of the most terrible humanitarian crises of the twentieth century. The slaughter in what is now Bangladesh stands as one of the cardinal moral challenges of recent history, although today it is far more familiar to South Asians than to Americans. It had a monumental impact on India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh—almost a sixth of humanity in 1971. In the dark annals of modern cruelty, it ranks as bloodier than Bosnia and by some accounts in the same rough league as Rwanda. It was a defining moment for both the United States and India, where their humane principles were put to the test.4
For the United States, as Archer Blood understood, a small number of atrocities are so awful that they stand outside of the normal day-to-day flow of diplomacy: the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda. When we think of U.S. leaders failing the test of decency in such moments, we usually think of uncaring disengagement: Franklin Roosevelt fighting World War II without taking serious steps to try to rescue Jews from the Nazi dragnet, or Bill Clinton standing idly by during the Rwandan genocide.5
But Pakistan's slaughter of its Bengalis in 1971 is starkly different. Here the United States was allied with the killers. The White House was actively and knowingly supporting a murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments. There was no question about whether the United States should intervene; it was already intervening on behalf of a military dictatorship decimating its own people.
This stands as one of the worst moments of moral blindness in U.S. foreign policy. Pakistan's crackdown on the Bengalis was not routine or small-scale killing, not something that could be dismissed as business as usual, but a colossal and systematic onslaught. Midway through the bloodshed, both the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department conservatively estimated that about two hundred thousand people had lost their lives. Many more would perish, cut down by Pakistani forces or dying in droves in miserable refugee camps. "The story of East Bengal will surely be written as one of the greatest nightmares of modern times," declared Edward Kennedy, who led the outcry in the Senate. But in the depths of the Cold War, Nixon and Kissinger were unyielding in their support for Pakistan, making possible horrific crimes against humanity—plausibly even a genocide—in that country's eastern wing.6
The ongoing Bengali slaughter led within a few months to a major war between Pakistan and India. In that time, the White House had every opportunity to grasp how bad these atrocities were. There were sober misgivings voiced in the White House, and thunderous protests from the State Department and its emissaries in Delhi and Dacca, with Archer Blood the loudest voice of all. But throughout it all, from the outbreak of civil war to the Bengali massacres to Pakistan's crushing defeat by the Indian military, Nixon and Kissinger, unfazed by detailed knowledge of the massacres, stood stoutly behind Pakistan.
As its most important international backer, the United States had great influence over Pakistan. But at almost every turning point in the crisis, Nixon and Kissinger failed to use that leverage to avert disaster. Before the shooting started, they consciously decided not to warn Pakistan's military chiefs against using violence on their own population. They did not urge caution or impose conditions that might have discouraged the Pakistani military government from butchering its own citizenry. They did not threaten the loss of U.S. support or even sanctions if Pakistan took the wrong course. They allowed the army to sweep aside the results of Pakistan's first truly free and fair democratic election, without even suggesting that the military strongmen try to work out a power-sharing deal with the Bengali leadership that had won the vote. They did not ask that Pakistan refrain from using U.S. weaponry to slaughter civilians, even though that could have impeded the military's rampage, and might have deterred the army. There was no public condemnation—nor even a private threat of it—from the president, the secretary of state, or other senior officials. The administration almost entirely contented itself with making gentle, token suggestions behind closed doors that Pakistan might lessen its brutality—and even that only after, months into the violence, it became clear that India was on the brink of attacking Pakistan.
This might give the impression of passivity, of a foreign policy on autopilot. Not so. Nixon and Kissinger actually drove their South Asia policies with gusto and impressive creativity—but only when silencing dissenters in the ranks, like Blood, or pursuing their hostility toward India. They found no appeal in India, neither out of ideological admiration for India's flawed but functioning democracy, nor from a geopolitical appreciation of the sheer size and importance of the Indian colossus. Instead, they denounced Indians individually and collectively, with an astonishingly personal and crude stream of vitriol. Alone in the Oval Office, these famous practitioners of dispassionate realpolitik were all too often propelled by emotion.
The slaughter happened at the same time that Nixon and Kissinger were planning their opening to China—a famous historic achievement that has a forgotten cost. Everyone remembers Nixon and Kissinger's months of clandestine Chinese diplomacy, followed by the amazing spectacle of the presidential visit to Mao Zedong. But what has been lost is the human toll exacted for it in Bangladesh and India. Nixon and Kissinger needed a secret channel to China, which they found in the good offices of Yahya—an impeccably discreet tyrant on warm terms with both the United States and China. While the Pakistani government was crushing the Bengalis, it was also carrying covert messages back and forth from Washington to Beijing. Archer Blood sent off his dissent telegram just three months before Kissinger took his first secret trip to Beijing, flying direct from Pakistan, which sped him on his way with hospitality, an airplane, and a cloak-and-dagger cover story. Nixon and Kissinger, always sympathetic to the Pakistani junta, were not about to condemn it while it was making itself so useful. So the Bengalis became collateral damage for realigning the global balance of power. In the bargain, Nixon and Kissinger also turned their backs on India: the strategic opening to one Asian titan meant a closing to another. Indeed, one of the very first things that the United States did with its new relationship with Mao's China was to secretly ask it to mobilize troops to threaten democratic India, in defense of Pakistan. It is absolutely right that the normalization of the American relationship with China stands as an epochal event, but those who justifiably want to celebrate it should not overlook what it meant for the Bengalis and Indians.
Kissinger and his defenders often try to shift the blame to Nixon. But the record here proves that Kissinger was almost as culpable as the president. When dealing with the White House and State Department staff, Kissinger would entertain a variety of viewpoints, showing his trademark subtlety, although pressing an anti-Indian line. But when it was just him and Nixon alone, he cannily stoked the president's fury. All the sophistication vanished, replaced with a relentless drumbeat against India. Although Kissinger billed himself around Washington as a vital restraint on Nixon's dangerous moods, here it was Kissinger who spun out of control. In the most heated moments of the crisis, when Nixon lost his nerve for a superpower confrontation with the Soviet Union that at worst could have led toward nuclear war, Kissinger goaded him on.
Nixon and Kissinger bear responsibility for a significant complicity in the slaughter of the Bengalis. This overlooked episode deserves to be a defining part of their historical reputations. But although Nixon and Kissinger have hardly been neglected by history, this major incident has largely been whitewashed out of their legacy—and not by accident. Kissinger began telling demonstrable falsehoods about the administration's record just two weeks into the crisis, and has not stopped distorting since. Nixon and Kissinger, in their vigorous efforts after Watergate to rehabilitate their own respectability as foreign policy wizards, have left us a farrago of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies about their policy toward the Bengali atrocities.7
To this day, four decades after the massacres, the dead hand of Nixonian cover-up still prevents Americans from knowing the full record. The White House staff routinely sanitized their records of conversations, sometimes at Kissinger's specific urging. Even now, mildewed and bogus claims of national security remain in place to bleep out particularly embarrassing portions of the White House tapes. Kissinger struck a deal with the Library of Congress that, until five years after his death, blocks researchers from seeing his papers there unless they have his written permission. Even if you could get in, according to the Library of Congress, many of Kissinger's most important papers are still hidden from daylight by a thicket of high-level classifications, security clearances, and need-to-know permissions. Kissinger did not reply to two polite requests for an interview, and then, four months later, refused outright. But against Nixon and Kissinger's own misrepresentations and immortal stonewalling, there is a different story to be found in thousands of pages of recently declassified U.S. papers, in dusty Indian archives, and on unheard hours of the White House tapes—offering a more accurate, documented account of Nixon and Kissinger's secret role in backing the perpetrators of one of the worst crimes of the twentieth century.8
It was left to India, which did not have the option of ignoring the slaughter of the Bengalis, to stop it. The gargantuan democracy was entwined with the tragedy next door in countless ways, from its own shocked Bengali population to its bitter confrontation with Pakistan. Indira Gandhi's government was motivated by a mix of lofty principle and brutal realpolitik: demanding an end to the slaughter of a civilian population and upholding the popular will of voters in a democratic election, but also seizing a prime opportunity to humiliate and rip apart India's hated enemy.
Indira Gandhi, India's prime minister and the great Jawaharlal Nehru's daughter, would later claim she acted "first of all, for purely humanitarian reasons." India's ambassador at the United Nations declared that his country had "absolutely nothing but the purest of motives and the purest of intentions: to rescue the people of East Bengal." But there was nothing pure about the protection of human rights. Some eminent political theorists and international lawyers have pointed to India's intervention as a singular and important case of an Asian postcolonial country launching a humanitarian intervention—a kind of war more commonly associated with Western military campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya. But there has been no proper chronicle of India's real motives.9
In fact, Indira Gandhi and her top advisers were coldly calculating strategists, even if their actions served a humane cause. India put itself in a position of breathtaking hypocrisy: demanding freedom for the Bengali people in East Pakistan, while conducting its own repression of restive populations under Indian control in Kashmir, as well as lesser-known groups like the Mizos and Nagas and—with painful irony— leftist Bengalis within India's own volatile state of West Bengal. While the Indian government emotionally spoke out on behalf of the millions of Bengalis who fled into India, its officials privately worried that these exiles might be radical subversives who would fuel more unrest and revolt in India's already shaky border states, especially West Bengal. India, in other words, was driven not just by sympathy for Bengalis, but also a certain amount of fear of revolutionary Bengalis.
While Indira Gandhi's government professed its unwavering desire for peace, she almost immediately turned to aggressive options. From the early days of the Pakistani crackdown, she had the Indian military covertly prepare for a full-scale regular war against Pakistan. India secretly had its army and security forces use bases on Indian soil to support Bengali guerrillas in their fight against the Pakistani state. India devoted enormous resources to covertly sponsoring the Bengali insurgency inside East Pakistan, providing the guerrillas with arms, training, camps, and safe passage back and forth across a porous border. Indian officials, from Gandhi on down, evaded or lied with verve, denying that they were maintaining the insurgency. But in fact, as India's own secret records prove, this massive clandestine enterprise was approved at the highest levels, involving India's intelligence services, border security forces, and army.
In the event, Pakistan rashly struck the first blow of a full-scale conventional war, with a surprise air attack in December 1971 that brought fierce combat in both West and East Pakistan. But while Indians today generally remember the war as outright Pakistani aggression, India's actual path to war shows a great degree of Indian responsibility as well. India knew it had a fearsome military advantage, and Gandhi's government used that ruthlessly. According to senior Indian generals, Gandhi wanted her forces to go to war not long after the start of Pakistan's crackdown, and had to be persuaded to wait for cooler fighting weather and more time to train. While the Indian military waited for winter, the Indian-backed insurgency bled the Pakistan army, leaving it demoralized and stretched thin. India's support for the Bengali rebels led to border clashes with Pakistani troops, and, as winter approached, to several substantial Indian incursions onto Pakistani territory. It is a patriotic delusion to imagine, as some Indian nationalists do today, that Pakistan's airstrikes were unprovoked. Still, Pakistan's air attack was a final act of folly for the military dictatorship. The war, fought in just two weeks, ended with a resounding Indian victory, and created the fledgling state of Bangladesh.
The president and the prime minister, in Washington and Delhi, were united by their need to grapple with their own democratic societies. As much as Nixon and Gandhi loathed each other, they shared a common exasperation at how their policies could be thwarted by their own people—a frustration that would in time lead both of them down their own different but alarmingly antidemocratic paths. In these two great democracies, it was not just governments but also peoples who had to confront one of the worst events of their century. Americans and Indians were challenged to make policy in a way that expressed their national sense of morality, not just their strategic interests.
The United States and India are radically different societies, in everything from wealth to ethnic composition to sheer size of population; but they do share some basic similarities in their systems of democratic governance. In both, democratic leaders were goaded and prodded by rambunctious elements at home: a free press with an ingrained habit of seeking out inconvenient or embarrassing stories; opposition politicians and partisans waiting to pounce should a president or prime minister stumble; and a public whose moral sensibilities often did not align with the dictates of the state's cold calculus of strategic interest. In both of these enormous democracies, the people were more moralistic than their governments.10
Americans reacted with disquiet or horror. The country's far-reaching newspapers and broadcast networks reported in shocking detail about these distant atrocities; ordinary Americans recoiled at what they learned on the news; and politicians in Congress, led by Edward Kennedy, seized the opportunity to politick against the White House. Thus even this White House found itself unable to continue its unstinting support of Pakistan through arms sales, which Kissinger would have liked to escalate, because of pressure from Congress and bureaucratic maneuvering by the State Department. Nixon and Kissinger found themselves boxed in by their country's liberal and democratic system; they had to moderate their policies, much against their will. As Kissinger complained to the president, "We are the ones who have been operating against our public opinion, against our bureaucracy, at the very edge of legality."11
A little further than that, actually. Nixon and Kissinger responded to these legal and democratic constraints on their authority in the classic Nixonian way: by breaking the law. Knowing full well that they were acting illegally, they provided U.S. weapons to Pakistan, which was under a U.S. arms embargo—an unknown scandal that is of a piece with the overall pattern of lawlessness that culminated with Watergate. As recently declassified documents and transcripts prove, Nixon and Kissinger approved a covert supply of sophisticated U.S. fighter airplanes via Jordan and Iran—despite explicit and emphatic warnings from both the State Department and the Defense Department that such arms transfers to Pakistan were illegal under U.S. law. (John Mitchell, the attorney general, was in the room as Nixon and Kissinger decided on this unlawful operation, but made no objections.) Kissinger, not wanting to get caught, made it clear to the president that they were both breaking the law. Nixon went ahead anyway.
Americans' sense of outrage circulated within the administration itself. The most vociferous dissenter was Archer Blood, but he had no shortage of company. The ambassador to India, a distinguished former Republican senator named Kenneth Keating, took his opposition all the way to the Oval Office, where he confronted Nixon and Kissinger to their faces over what he called genocide. The middle ranks of the State Department, stationed in Washington, Dacca, Delhi, and even parts of West Pakistan, rose up in open defiance of the policies of the president of the United States. There were even rumblings of discontent within the National Security Council at the White House itself.
Although Nixon and Kissinger frequently sparred with the State Department over all sorts of issues, here the clash was out in the open, with an unsurpassed gulf in views of policy and morality. The State Department outfoxed Nixon and Kissinger, quietly using its bureaucratic power to jam the shipment of U.S. weaponry to Pakistan. In response, Nixon and Kissinger raged against the bureaucracy and tried to fire or demote some of the most influential dissenters, foremost among them Blood and Keating. The president and his national security advisor plowed ahead with their support of Pakistan as best they could, but were impeded by the consciences and the best advice of a surprisingly large chunk of their own administration.
There was no real question of the United States going to war to stop the slaughter. In 1971, there was no American equivalent of today's debates about humanitarian intervention in places like Bosnia and Darfur. After all, the country was already fighting a major war, trapped in the quagmire of Vietnam; there was no American appetite for another Asian conflict. Thus the leading critics of the Nixon administration, like Kennedy, linked Vietnam with Pakistan: two places where the United States was standing behind illegitimate governments, at a terrible cost to those peoples, and to the good name of the United States. American dissenters like Blood and Keating, as well as outraged political rivals like Kennedy, only wanted to see American influence repurposed to support democracy and human rights. Of course, they expected that a war would put an end to the slaughter—but that would be waged by India.
In the United States today, particularly after the disasters of the Iraq war, there are many thoughtful and serious people who criticize the promotion of human rights as arrogance, neoimperialism, and worse. No doubt, there are potent reasons for caution about trying to translate human rights ideals into statecraft. But this largely forgotten crisis, unfolding far from Washington, exemplifies an alternative way of making U.S. foreign policy, one that makes no allowance for human rights. This kind of policy has shown itself in the U.S. war against terror and may well reappear in future diplomacy. For all the very real flaws of human rights politics, Nixon and Kissinger's support of a military dictatorship engaged in mass murder is a reminder of what the world can easily look like without any concern for the pain of distant strangers.12
The stakes were high for India's democracy. Sunil Khilnani, a farsighted India expert, argues powerfully that India is the most important experiment in democracy since the American and French revolutions: "its outcome may well turn out to be the most significant of them all, partly because of its sheer human scale, and partly because of its location, a substantial bridgehead of effervescent liberty on the Asian continent." Nobody would idealize India's flawed democracy, least of all Indians themselves: this was and is a land of heartbreaking poverty, endemic corruption, collapsing infrastructure, enduring caste fissures, arrogant bureaucratic inefficiency, and shocking social inequality. Some 350 million Indians—roughly a third of the country's population—today live below the poverty line. But this is also a country of stupendous pluralism and vitality that, against all odds, maintains a democratic system and culture, offering a way for a fractious public to make its multitudinous voices heard and a chance for the government to correct itself.13
Indians were overwhelmingly outraged by the atrocities in East Pakistan. In a factionalized country where popular harmony is a surpassingly rare thing, there was a remarkable consensus: Pakistan was behaving horrifically; the Bengalis were in the right; India had to act in defense of democracy and innocent lives. Almost the entire Indian political spectrum, from Hindu nationalists on the right to socialists and communists on the left, lined up behind the Bengalis. These persecuted foreigners were not Indian citizens, but they were not altogether foreign; Bengalis were a familiar part of the Indian national scene, and India's own Bengali population rallied to their brethren. Across the country, newspapers ran furious editorials condemning Pakistan and urging the Indian government to recognize Bangladesh's independence.
Dismissing the niceties of national sovereignty in the cause of saving human beings and of respecting the popular will of the Bengalis, Indians demanded a swift recognition of an independent state of Bangladesh. Of course, since the bloody days of Partition, a great many Indians hated and feared Pakistan; plenty took a kind of angry satisfaction in lambasting Pakistani leaders like Yahya and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for confirming all the worst things that Indians had ever said about Pakistan. But there was a moral sensibility driving Indian politics that even the gimlet-eyed officials around Indira Gandhi, and the unsentimental Gandhi herself, could not ignore. She abandoned her father Nehru's traditional anticolonial pronouncements about the sanctity of national sovereignty. Instead, the beleaguered prime minister began to compare the bloodshed in East Pakistan to the Holocaust.
Perhaps the most striking Indian policy was something that it did not do. India did not stop masses of Bengali refugees from flooding into India. Unimaginably huge numbers of Bengalis escaped into safety on Indian soil, eventually totaling as many as ten million—five times the number of people displaced in Bosnia in the 1990s. The needs of this new, desperate population were far beyond the capacities of the feeble governments of India's border states, and Indira Gandhi's government at the center. But at that overcharged moment, the Indian public would have found it hard to accept the sight of its own soldiers and border troops opening fire to keep out these desperate and terrified people. Here, at least, was something like real humanitarianism. As payment for this kindness, India found itself crushed under the unsustainable burden of one of the biggest refugee flows in world history— which galvanized the public and the government to new heights of self-righteous fury against Pakistan.
India was left alone. Despite pleas to the rest of the world, India was given only a tiny amount of money to cope with the refugees. China was bitterly hostile; the United States only somewhat less so; the Non-Aligned Movement was, in the clutch, of no help; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states were fiercely pro-Pakistan; even the United Nations seemed tilted toward Pakistan. India was forced into a tighter alignment with the Soviet Union, to the delight of leftists around Gandhi, but to the dismay of other Indians. Having been shoved aside by the democratic superpower, India cozied up to the other one.
As India grows into a world power, the story of the birth of Bangladesh has never been more important. It stands as an awful but crucial case for better understanding the politics of human rights, in a world where the duty of defending the vulnerable is not something that the West arrogates for itself alone. Today, at the advent of an Asian era in world politics, the future of human rights will increasingly depend on the ideologies, institutions, and cultures of ascendant Asian great powers like China and India. Thus India's democratic response to the plight of the Bengalis marks not just a pivotal moment for the history of the subcontinent, but for how the world's biggest democracy makes its foreign policy—and what weight it gives to human rights.
For Pakistan, the crisis of 1971 is mourned as a supreme national trauma: not just the loss of one of the country's two wings and the majority of its population, but a heightening of a truncated state's dread of the much larger and stronger Indian enemy. And the bloodletting of 1971 marks an important chapter of a U.S. embrace of military dictators at their worst. Although American popular memory about Pakistan tends to start in September 2001, it was Nixon's embrace of Yahya that helped to define a U.S. relationship with Pakistan based overwhelmingly on the military, even in its most repugnant hour. Nixon and Kissinger set the stage for an ongoing decimation of Pakistan's democratic opposition, giving time and space to Islamicize the country more and more. This pattern of U.S. antidemocratic engagement— with origins going back far beyond Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's most recent U.S.-backed military dictator—has helped convince so many Pakistanis that the United States coldly pursues its own realpolitik interests and cares nothing for them.
Bangladeshis still mourn their losses from not so long ago. This book is not—and does not purport to be—anything like a comprehensive account of these crimes against humanity. It mostly documents the American eyewitness perspective on them, which is obviously only a part of the complete record of horrors. Still, this is an important portion, because it is the true local viewpoint of the Pakistani government's superpower ally. After all, Archer Blood and the other U.S. officials reporting back to the Nixon administration knew they had every career incentive to downplay the enormity of what they saw; their stark reporting thus stands as a crucial and credible part of that wider story.
Today we still face the legacy of Nixon and Kissinger's actions. Bangladesh, traumatized by its founding ordeal, now has the eighth-largest population on earth, bigger than Russia or Japan. With India creakily becoming a great power, and with ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and Kashmir that directly affects the United States in its war against Islamist terror, it's widely understood that South Asia has never been more important to Americans. But there is a gulf between what Americans remember of the Cold War and what its victims remember of it. Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis have not forgotten 1971—although they may be surprised by the newly declassified scope of the United States' dark record.14
Nixon and Kissinger have put extraordinary effort into magnifying their foreign policy achievements, so that the horrors of Watergate would appear as a smallish blot on their overall record. Today, Nixon and Kissinger's biggest success in promoting themselves as foreign policy heroes has been the historical oblivion that surrounds the killing campaign in Bangladesh. It is high time for Americans to confront what Nixon and Kissinger did in those terrible days.15
1. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 7 April 1971, Dacca 1168. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 30 March 1971, Dacca 986.
2. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 30 March 1971, Dacca 986. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 31 March 1971, Dacca 1010. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Bell to Shakespeare, 9 April 1971, Dacca 1211. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 30 March 1971, Dacca 986.
3. Archer K. Blood, The Cruel Birth of Bangladesh: Memoirs of an American Diplomat (Dacca: University Press of Bangladesh, 2002), p. 213. POL 23-9 PAK, Box 2530, Blood to Rogers, 28 March 1971, Dacca 959. POL 1 PAK-US, Box 2535, Blood to Rogers, 6 April 1971, Dacca 1138; NSC Files, Box 138, Kissinger Office Files, Country Files—Middle East, Blood to Rogers, 6 April 1971, Dacca 1138.
4. MEA, WII/109/31/71, vol. I, Singh statement to UN Security Council, 12 December 1971.
5. David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945 (New York: Pantheon, 1984). Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002). The United States was aligned with Iraq during the 1987–88 genocidal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds (Power, "A Problem from Hell," p. 174), and turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's atrocities. While this is probably the example that comes closest to the Pakistani case, the United States and Pakistan were treaty allies with an enduring relationship—closer ties than those between the United States and Iraq (Power, "A Problem from Hell," pp. 172–245).
6. NSC Files, Box 574, Indo-Pak War, South Asian Congressional, Kennedy speech, 23 September 1971. NSC Files, Box 570, Indo-Pak Crisis, South Asia, CIA Office of National Estimates, "The Indo-Pakistani Crisis," 22 September 1971. Tad Szulc, "U.S. Military Goods Sent to Pakistan Despite Ban," New York Times, 22 June 1971, pp. A1, A11. Indian officials spoke of a million dead, and Bangladeshis of three million, which are inflated numbers. Richard Sisson and Leo Rose interviewed a senior Indian official who stated the death toll at three hundred thousand (War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990], p. 306n24). The New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg wrote that diplomats in Dacca believed that hundreds of thousands of Bengalis, perhaps as many as a million or more, had been killed (Sydney H. Schanberg, "Long Occupation of East Pakistan Foreseen in India," New York Times, 26 December 1971, pp. A1, A13). A more recent study based on world health surveys came up with roughly 269,000 deaths (Ziad Obermeyer, Christopher J. L. Murray, and Emmanuela Gakidou, "Fifty Years of Violent War Deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia," British Medical Journal, vol. 336 [28 June 2008], pp. 1482–86). Robert Dallek estimates that as many as five hundred thousand people were killed by Yahya's troops (Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power [New York: HarperCollins, 2007], p. 335); so does Walter Isaacson (Kissinger: A Biography [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992], p. 372). On the low side, Pakistan's postwar judicial inquiry—working from the army's Eastern Command situation reports—estimated that the military had killed in action roughly twenty-six thousand people, while admitting that local commanders "tried to minimise the result of their own actions" (Government of Pakistan, The Report of the Hamoodur Rehman Commission of Inquiry into the 1971 War [Lahore: Vanguard, 2001], pp. 317, 340, 513; for a somewhat higher estimate in a book that is critical of Bangladeshi nationalism, see Sarmila Bose, Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War [New York: Columbia University Press, 2011], p. 181). In South Asia, the tolls of death and dispossession are only rivaled by Partition, in which half a million or a million people died, and twelve million people were displaced (Yasmin Khan, The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007], p. 6).
7. U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: South Asia Crisis, 1971 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005), vol. 11, Louis J. Smith, ed., 40 Committee meeting, 9 April 1971, pp. 63–65. Hereafter cited as FRUS.
8. See, for instance, NSA, SRG meeting, 17 January 1972, 3:09–4:05 p.m., and NSC Files, Box 626, Country Files—Middle East, Pakistan, vol. VII, Hoskinson to Kissinger, 13 August 1971. Samuel Hoskinson wrote that an account of a talk with a senior Pakistani general was "phrased and sanitized so that it could be released to State and Defense without causing any problems." Daun van Ee letter to author, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, 30 September 2010, on file with author.
9. Dom Moraes, Mrs Gandhi (London: Jonathan Cape, 1980), p. 188. For a mixed verdict, see Inder Malhotra, Indira Gandhi: A Personal and Political Biography (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1989), pp. 133, 188. MEA, HI/121/13/71, vol. II, Sen statement to UN Security Council, 4 December 1971. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977), pp. 90, 101–8; Michael Walzer, "On Humanitarianism," Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, no. 4 (July–August 2011), pp. 77–79; Pratap Bhanu Mehta, "Reluctant India," Journal of Democracy, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 2001), p. 100; Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Michael W. Doyle, "A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention," Ethics and International Affairs, vol. 23, no. 4 (2010), p. 363; Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 139–43; Subrata Roy Chowdhury, The Genesis of Bangladesh: A Study in International Legal Norms and Permissive Conscience (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1972); John Salzberg, "UN Prevention of Human Rights Violations," International Organization, vol. 27, no. 1 (winter 1973), pp. 115–27; Richard Lillich, "The International Protection of Human Rights by General International Law," in Report of the International Committee on Human Rights of the International Law Association, vol. 38 (1972), p. 54. For a cogent critique, see Thomas M. Franck and Nigel S. Rodley, "After Bangladesh," American Journal of International Law, vol. 67 (1973), pp. 275–305. See Ramachandra Guha, "The Challenge of Contemporary History," Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 43, no. 26–27 (28 June 2008), pp. 192–200.
10. The case studies in this book, of the United States and India, are also meant to fill out a wider collective empirical project of process-tracing about the decision making in massive human rights crises, including Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003); J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane, eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Brendan Simms and D. J. B. Trim, Humanitarian Intervention: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Jennifer Welsh, ed., Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005); Adam Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998); Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies (New York: Holt, 1981); David S. Wyman, ed., The World Reacts to the Holocaust (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996); Richard Breitman, Official Secrets: What the Nazis Planned, What the British and Americans Knew (New York: Hill & Wang, 1998); Power, "A Problem from Hell"; Bernard Kouchner, Le malheur des autres (Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob, 1991); Norman Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001); Wheeler, Saving Strangers; Philip Gourevitch, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999); and Geoffrey Robinson, "If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die": How Genocide Was Stopped in East Timor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Archer Blood could be remembered in the company of other Americans who tried to stop genocide, whose stories are recounted magnificently in Power, "A Problem from Hell" (see pp. 514–16).
11. FRUS: Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972, vol. E-7 (online at http:// history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve07), White House tapes, Oval Office 637-3, 12 December 1971, 8:45–9:42 a.m. Hereafter cited as FRUS, vol. E-7.
12. For a range of intelligent skepticism, left and right, see Alan Wolfe, Political Evil: What It Is and How to Combat It (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011); Mahmood Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror (New York: Pantheon, 2009); Jonathan Rauch, "When Moralism Isn't Moral," New York Times Book Review, 7 October 2011; "A Solution from Hell," n+1, no. 12, August 2011.
13. Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999), p. 4. See Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005); Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Burden of Democracy (New York: Penguin, 2003); and Perry Anderson, "Gandhi Centre Stage," London Review of Books, 5 July 2012, pp. 3–11. See Steve Coll, On the Grand Trunk Road: A Journey into South Asia (New York: Times Books, 1994), pp. 33–52, 118–23, 262–63; Atul Kohli, ed., The Success of India's Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen, "Putting Growth in Its Place," Outlook India, 14 November 2011; Ashutosh Varshney, "Is India Becoming More Democratic?" Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 59, no. 1 (February 2000), pp. 3–25; Pradeep Chhibber and Ken Kollman, "Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States," American Political Science Review, vol. 92, no. 2 (June 1998), pp. 329–42; Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999); Judith M. Brown, Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985). For poverty numbers, see Nikhila Gill and Vivek Dehejia, "What Does India's Poverty Line Actually Measure?" India Ink blog, New York Times, 4 April 2012. On inequality, see Pratap Bhanu Mehta, "Breaking the Silence," The Caravan, 1 October 2012, and Atul Kohli, Poverty amid Plenty in the New India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). For a brilliant portrait of the real lives of poor Indians, see Katherine Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity (New York: Random House, 2012).
14. For thoughtful skepticism, see Ramachandra Guha, "Will India Become a Superpower?" Outlook, 30 June 2008, and Coll, Grand Trunk Road, pp. 274–82, 88–91. For outstanding literary reflections of these events, see Salman Rushdie, Midnight's Children (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), pp. 419–55, and Tahmima Anam, A Golden Age (New York: Harper, 2008).
15. Tad Szulc, The Illusion of Peace: Foreign Policy in the Nixon Years (New York: Viking, 1977), p. v. The entire India-Pakistan crisis warrants just five cursory pages in Stephen Ambrose's monumental three-volume biography of Nixon, which totals 1,933 pages of writing (not counting notes and bibliography). See Stephen E. Ambrose, Nixon, 3 vols. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988–91). There are good sections about Bangladesh in three excellent works—Isaacson's Kissinger, Dallek's Nixon and Kissinger, and Seymour M. Hersh's The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House (New York: Summit, 1983)—although my project gives the crisis a more central place and tries to offer a more comprehensively detailed account of it than would be practical for those already-long books. For a first-rate short account of U.S. policy, see Robert J. McMahon, "The Danger of Geopolitical Fantasies," in Fredrik Logevall and Andrew Preston, eds., Nixon in the World: American Foreign Relations, 1969–1977 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). For an outstanding book on Indian and Pakistani decision making, based on interviews with almost all the senior participants, see Sisson and Rose, War and Secession. See A. M. A. Muhith, American Response to Bangladesh Liberation War (Dacca: University Press, 1996). For a bracing and sophisticated castigation, which does not condemn Bangladesh to the usual amnesia, see Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (London: Verso, 2001).
Excerpted from The Blood Telegram by Gary J. Bass. Copyright © 2013 by Gary J. Bass. Excerpted by permission of Vintage, a division of Random House LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.