Why does Manheru spare boss Mugabe?

HOW is it that Nathaniel Manheru of the Herald is so good at finding fault with American and British policies but finds nothing wrong with President Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF?



, sans-serif”>In the latest of his boring and winding essays last Saturday he blames US president George Bush and British premier Tony Blair for invading Iraq and expresses the view that the real reason why Bush and Blair invaded Iraq was simply to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and not because he had any weapons of mass destruction.


Manheru also says the recent inquiries by Lord Hutton and Lord Burtler (I notice Manheru calls him Lord Burton) were mere smokescreens which did not specifically blame Blair for invading Iraq.


But President Mugabe has ordered a number of commissions of inquiry before but is yet to act on any of them.


He ordered Zimbabwean troops into the DRC and up to this day we don’t know why we went there, and of what benefit it was to our country.


President Mugabe has never been held to account for this and Manheru thinks it is acceptable just because he is black.


However wrong Blair might have been in invading Iraq, at least he had the decency to face parliament to account for his actions and allow people to make their own judgements.


The media in Britain is free to blame Blair where they find him at fault. But under President Mugabe the only journalists allowed to operate are those who think like Manheru.


Blair does not force people to vote for his party that is why, as Manheru points out, Labour lost a by-election in Birmingham.


Zimbabwe is the only country where the ruling party ruins the economy and people’s lives but still continues to win elections.


Everywhere else in the world, political parties are re-elected if they serve their people well and not when they lie and ruin the economy. That is why too, as Manheru points out, Jose Maria Aznar lost the election in Spain.

I do not mind if Manheru’s political views differ from mine, but I think it is unfair to be selective when criticising leaders, yet his own president is worse.


If the MDC is a dead political party, why does he dedicate so much space criticising it and its leadership? Is it worth expending energy, time and ink talking about the dead when the living still need his attention?


Hudson Taivo,

UK.