Bush and Blair Backtracking But Insist That War Was Justified Nonetheless…

After months of chest-thumping declarations that weapons would be found, the two giants—the U.S. and the U.K.—have finally admitted that faulty intelligence was to blame. Yet, despite this admission, they continue to insist that invading Iraq was still the right thing to do.

The hunt for Iraq’s WMDs has produced nothing but hot air.

Just yesterday, CIA Director George Tenet stated that the agency never claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat.” This, of course, contradicts the relentless rhetoric leading up to the invasion, where the phrase “grave and gathering danger”was used like a drumbeat to justify war.

For those who still stand by Bush’s and Blair’s after-the-fact justifications, even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, I’ve heard a few common arguments—each more flawed than the last:

1. “We can’t really blame them. It was faulty intelligence.”

Wrong!

Hans Blix’s reports provided clear evidence that contradicted the intelligence used to justify war. Even more damning, we now know that neither the CIA nor MI6 had operatives on the ground in Iraq.

So why, then, were Blix’s findings ignored? Why did the march to war continue despite credible doubts?

2. “It’s okay because this was an international effort, and most of the world agreed with it.”

Not quite.

Mr. Bush, please remember that the world is bigger than just the Coalition of the Willing. Every time you claim “global support”, keep in mind that your coalition represented only 10% of the world’s population.

And even if the entire world had agreed, does that somehow make a modern-day lynching acceptable? Civilization should have evolved beyond that.

3. “Saddam had to go. He was evil. If we allowed him to stay in power, he would have become another Hitler.”

If that were truly the case, don’t you think Europeans—who actually suffered under Hitler– would have been the first to sound the alarm?

Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but he was also a has-been. He lacked a powerful army, he had no mass ideological following, and he was isolated even within the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike Hitler, he didn’t have the means to wage a global war, let alone defend himself when attacked.

4. “I don’t like Saddam’s face, and no matter what, I’m glad he’s gone—even if the war was based on false and unjustifiable reasons.”

Well, my friend, if that’s your argument, there’s probably no way to convince you of the magnitude of this wrongdoing.

But remember this: One day, Bush and Blair—or leaders like them—may use the same pretext to invade another country of their choosing.

Pray very hard that it’s not ours.

No Weapons Found In Iraq

Colin Powell has admitted to reporters flying with him that, well… there may not have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

And just like that, Powell’s grand pre-war Security Council presentation—packed with “proof” and “irrefutable evidence”—comes crashing down faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

One can only imagine the hours spent meticulously crafting that PowerPoint masterpiece, not to mention the tireless efforts of the creative” intelligence team tasked with drawing connections between Iraq, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda—all of which resulted in a presentation fit for Hollywood. Specifically, the kind of Imminent-Threat-Coming-So-Hero-Briefs-The-Council-But-Council-Won’t-Listen scene we’ve seen a thousand times before.

We all remember those chilling moments when Powell, in his most serious trust me, I’m a credible statesman tone, presented “intercepted” Iraqi radio transmissions featuring faceless, evil Eye-Rack-EE commanders ordering their soldiers to hide weapons before the arrival of UN inspectors.

We were also shown grainy satellite images of what we were told were missiles, factories and makeshift WMD labs, lovingly annotated by intelligence analysts in a game of color-by-numbers for warmongers.

And now?

Turns out, all of it was built on lies, half-truths, and creative storytelling.

Adding insult to injury, David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (the team tasked with actually finding these so-called WMDs), resigned—which, if we were in a movie, would be the part where the scientist dramatically removes his government badge and walks out.

As his parting shot, Kay flatly stated that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Amazingly, just days before, President Bush had quoted Kay’s report, cherry-picking and recontextualizing his words into the vague claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction program activities.

(What does that even mean? No one knows. But hey, it’s in the State of the Union address, so it must be true!).

And so, the infamous WMD “smoking gun” may turn out to be as real as a mirage in the Iraqi desert—except this one cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

Mid-Priced Speakers

With a specific mission to upgrade my existing system, my buddies and I set out on a quest to find the best speakers that money (or more specifically, around RM 8,000) can buy.

We tested several speakers that day but in the end, only two stood out — with one honorable mention: the KEF reference series, which, while very good, was way, way, way beyond my paltry budget (about 4 times beyond to be exact).

B&W Nautilus 805:

First, a note about the B&W showroom in MidValley. This shop is ONE of the BEST, if not THE BEST hi-fi shop in terms of size, variety (if you’re looking for B&Ws and Arcams), interior decoration and, oh yes, tastefully furnished and sonically superb listening rooms.

Now for the speaker:- the Nautilus 805 speaker is sweet!

We tested it with a generic fusion track, and the results were excellent. The highs were crisp, and the mid-range was crystal clear. Being a bookshelf speaker, the bass was slightly muted, but the low end was deep enough for most purposes. It was fast, with excellent transients.

However, there was one small issue—it was a little too sweet for my taste. Normally, I can handle bright speakers, but something about the Nautilus 805 felt incomplete. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it… until we tried the Harbeth.

Harbeth HL Compact 7ES-2:

Before I get into the Harbeth, let’s talk about the shop that sells them—Tropical Audio in Setapak.

This place is the polar opposite of the B&W showroom. Tucked between motorcycle repair shops, it looks completely unassuming from the outside. Upon entering, I was greeted by a shockingly modest listening “area”—which wasn’t really a room at all.

There, against the left wall, was an old rattan sofa, the kind that was popular in the early 1980s. On the right side, a lineup of speakers stood in a row, with an old, dusty Quad CD player and 606 amplifier in the middle. To top it off, I spotted a JBL subwoofer in the setup. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.

Then I saw them.

Three pairs of the ugliest speakers I had ever laid eyes on.

No fancy curves, no glossy finishes—just plain rectangular boxes.

Things got even worse when the shop owner’s wife inserted a Jacky Cheung CD into the player. At that moment, I nearly walked out.

Still, I decided to close my eyes and listen.

And then—pure magic.

The 7ES-2 came alive with tight, controlled bass that went surprisingly low for a half-floor-stander (though we had to convince the lady to turn off the JBL subwoofer, which was adding an artificial rumble to the setup). The highs were clean and natural.

But the real game-changer? The stereo imaging.

I could literally see Jacky Cheung standing in the middle of the room.

Wanting to test it further, I protested against Aaron Neville (which the lady tried to play next) and got her to switch to Telarc’s Happy Trails instead. Once again, the 7ES-2 delivered. I felt as if the orchestra was right there with me– I could almost pinch the red-haired oboist sitting to my right.

The Final Decision

Comparing both speakers, I finally understood what the Nautilus 805 lacked—it didn’t have the superb stereo imaging, clarity, and sheer musical passion of the 7ES-2.

And so, I had no choice but to abandon my personal favorite (though the B&W still looks undeniably sexy) and settle for a pair of boring-looking, yet sonically superior, Harbeth speakers.

Because in the end, it’s not about looks—it’s about the music.

In search of the perfect sound

Inspired by a visit to a friend’s place in Singapore—where I had the chance to experience vinyl on his hi-fi system—I decided to dive back into the world of perfect audio reproduction.

To be honest, I am a relapsed audiophile.

As a kid, I was always tinkering with audio systems, though I never had the resources to get anything truly high-end. My house started with an 8-track system, later replaced by an unbranded all-in-one cassette-tuner-amplifier and a pair of home-built speakers. On that modest setup, I grew up listening to The Beatles, ABBA, Bee Gees, Anne Murray, Art Garfunkel, Fleetwood Mac, Earth, Wind & Fire, Leo Sayer, Boney M, Beethoven, Mozart and Sam Hui. Given those musical influences, it’s no small wonder I turned out emotionally balanced and relatively normal. (Or did I?)

The Audiophile Awakening

The audiophile bug bit me when I stumbled upon an old Hi-Fi Annual from the now-defunct Asia Magazine at a Berita Bookstore warehouse sale. The magazine was filled with insightful articles on high-fidelity sound and reviews of top-tier audio systems of that year. One particular article claimed that every true audiophile’s dream is to recreate, as faithfully as possible, the experience of live music.

That got me thinking– I had never actually heard a live orchestral performance (aside from school recitals, which I don’t think really count). Determined to understand what “live” truly sounded like, I attended a classical music performance by a traveling youth orchestra. Even in the sonically challenged Dewan Tun Hussein Onn at PWTC, I was completely blown away.

It reminded me of that scene in Amadeus where Salieri first hears Mozart’s clarinet concerto—a moment of pure sonic seduction. The music transcended mere notes, becoming intangible ethers of absolute beauty, stirring emotions and soothing the soul. But at the same time, I felt a deep frustration—no matter how much I tinkered, my setup at home could never replicate that live sound.

The Struggle for High-Fidelity Sound

Lacking the financial means to upgrade my system, I survived on compact cassettes—though I had to stick a toothpick on the pinch roller of my tape deck to slow it down (because it played everything slightly too fast). FM radio became another go-to source for music.

Later, thanks to Bob, a fellow audiophile, I managed to get a mini-compo (a term that still gives me shivers), which—crucially—had a CD player. My very first CD? Enigma’s debut album. I played it over and over and over again, mesmerized by the hiss-free, crystal-clear sound.

Adding a CD player to my basic hi-fi system was a small step—perhaps just one out of a thousand—toward achieving live music realism. But it was a step that opened up an entirely new world of sound.

The Audiophile Cycle

But I digress. To cut a long story short, my passion for high-fidelity sound became cyclical.

At its peak, I had a Marantz CD-5000 CD player, a NAD C320 integrated amplifier, and Tannoy Mercury MX1 speakers. At its lowest point, I convinced myself that iPods sounded fantastically natural, and I swapped my Tannoy speakers for a pair of Audio Pro Focus SA-5 floor-standing AV speakers—mostly because they had booming low bass, much like (dread of all dreads) an Ah Beng’s car audio setup.

Next Stop: SACDs, DVD-Audio, and Vinyl

Panther

You know how some people get excited about Football Finals or Tennis Grand Slams? Well, I get that way about operating system updates. Yes, I’m that kind of nerd. So when MacAsia Apple Centre in GE Mall announced a Panther launch event on 24th October 2003 at 8pm (which happened to be Deepavali as well), I was like a kid who just found out Christmas was coming early – if Christmas involved binary code and kernel improvements.

Being the slightly paranoid tech enthusiast I am (blame it on years of Windows trauma), I double-checked the date. You know, just in case someone fat-fingered the keyboard and I’d end up being that guy standing alone outside a closed store with my credit card and dashed dreams. Turns out, yes, they were really hosting it on a public holiday, complete with food and drinks. And no matter how much I cajoled them, they won’t sell me the software before that date regardless of how much I had spent with them.

Here’s the thing about Panther (Mac OS X 10.3 for those who don’t speak Apple): every new operating system software update makes your older hardware run faster. Coming from the Windows world, this concept was as foreign to me. In my Windows experience, new operating systems were usually just elaborate schemes to make you buy new hardware – kind of like how you are forced to buy a new house every time there is new interior design idea.

But Panther? This magnificent beast actually made my Powerbook and Powerbook purr. I’m not talking about that placebo effect where you convince yourself your computer is faster because you just spent money on it (we’ve all been there). No, this was real. I even installed it on my friend’s ancient clamshell iBook – which was crawling on Mac OS X 10.1 – and suddenly it was dancing like it had discovered caffeine.

So here’s my challenge to Microsoft: try making Windows updates that don’t require users to basically upgrade their computer. For once, it will be kinda nice to squeeze every ounce of power from older Intel machines.

So long and thanks for all the fish

When I first became aware of the world around me—somewhere around the age of five—the Prime Minister of Malaysia had always been Datuk Hussein Onn. One of his most distinctive features was his recognizable parrot-nosed side profile, made famous by Lat in his Scenes from Malaysian Life collection, which even included a step-by-step guide on how to draw all three Malaysian Prime Ministers (up until then).

When Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister and Hussein Onn retired (later becoming Tun), my worldview was shaken. To me, Hussein Onn was a quiet and unassuming figure. He seemed like the kind of leader who would remain calm even under immense pressure. His laid-back and peaceful aura, in my young mind, was what Malaysia itself represented.

But my initial impression of Mahathir wasn’t really my own—it was second-hand, a collection of opinions I had absorbed from the adults around me. Growing up in a liberal but Chinese household, there was suspicion about a Malay ultra taking the reins of government. Some relatives worried that Chinese businesses, education, and way of life would be significantly affected.

Naturally, I was concerned.

Then one day, a Chinese classmate told me, quite confidently, that Mahathir would be good for the country. I disagreed. Our animated debate quickly attracted a crowd of students—Malay, Chinese, and Indian alike—who joined in the discussion. Primary school political debates are probably the most politically incorrect forums imaginable, with children often parroting whatever their parents say at home. But in many ways, they also reveal the underlying sentiments of society.

From that discussion, one thing was clear: no one knew what to expect. And that pretty much defined Mahathir’s tenure—people never quite knew what he would do next, but they knew that whatever it was, it would be big.

Mahathir and His Obsession with Time

The first opinion I formed about Mahathir on my own was that he was fascinated with time.

Why did I think that? Well, first, he took an hour away from Malaysia—moving our clocks ahead of Thailand and Singapore so that East and West Malaysia could share the same time zone. Next, he introduced punch cards in government offices, a system that later trickled down to private organizations.

I still remember the impact of those changes. Growing up, RTM used to publish TV schedules with exact timings, down to the second. A show like The Six Million Dollar Man might be scheduled for 8:07 PM on a Wednesday—43 minutes after a cartoon. The problem? RTM could never keep up with its own scheduling, and shows always aired either early or late. After Mahathir’s push for better time management, RTM adjusted its schedules to round numbers (though actually adhering to them remains a work in progress).

Looking East and Buying British Last

Then came one of Mahathir’s boldest moves: the “Look East” policy.

At the time, most nations looked West—to the United States or the USSR—for economic models, investments, and aid. But Mahathir challenged Malaysians to emulate Asian success stories instead, particularly Japan and South Korea. This was a radical shift, especially considering the colonial admiration many Malaysians still had for the British. To make his point even clearer, he spearheaded the “Buy British Last” campaign.

Privatization and Malaysia, Inc.

Then came the era of privatization, along with those Filem Negara short films about Malaysia, Inc..

I remember watching these films (I watched a lot of TV back then) on a lazy Friday afternoon, struggling to understand the message. At one point, I even wondered, Are they turning Malaysia into a corporation? Does this mean we all get salaries from the government?

But while some of Mahathir’s economic policies were met with skepticism (and plenty of complaints—Malaysians do love to complain), they persisted. And as a result, Malaysia transformed in ways we never could have imagined.

Big Things, Big Ideas

Under Mahathir, big things kept happening.

Malaysia started producing cars. The first model, the Proton Saga, was… well, aesthetically challenged. I still remember the cringeworthy TV commercial jingle:

“Pro-Ton SAAAA-GAAAA, ke-ja-ya-an Ma-lay-SIAAAA!”

Thankfully, Proton improved with each new model, and my first three cars were proudly Malaysian-made.

Infrastructure development skyrocketed. I don’t recall a time when I wasn’t seeing the construction of a new overpass, bypass, or underpass. Malaysia was being tarmacked and wired up like never before. This not only connected the country but also connected Malaysia to the world. Even now, I still get chills every time I depart or arrive at KLIA—not from the air conditioning, but from the sheer grandeur of the place.

The NEP was softened. While the New Economic Policy (Dasar Ekonomi Baru) remained a contentious issue for non-Bumiputera communities, Mahathir subtly shifted towards a more open capitalist economy. This led to the rise of a new class of tycoons and, more importantly, the Vision 2020 speech—his blueprint for a progressive, united, and economically robust Malaysia.

Where Mahathir Fell Short

That’s not to say I agreed with everything Mahathir did.

My biggest criticism? The Anwar Ibrahim debacle.

It remains one of the darkest stains on his leadership. He likely miscalculated the groundswell of support for Anwar, and his government’s heavy-handed approach sparked unprecedented public protests. The real reasons behind Anwar’s sacking may never be known—at least, not during Mahathir’s lifetime—but let’s just say I never bought the corrupt homosexual narrative.

Secondly, Mahathir had the power to accelerate liberalization—economically, politically, and socially—but he didn’t go far enough.

He could have implemented transparency reforms across government bureaucracy, just as he did with punch clocks and nametags. Small changes create big cultural shifts, and had he taken this step, corruption at all levels—ranging from petty bribes to major corporate scandals—could have been significantly curbed. Mahathir had the right moment and the right authority to plant that seed, but he didn’t.

Mahathir’s Lasting Legacy

Love him or hate him, Mahathir redefined Malaysia.

More than anything, he instilled in us a confidence we never had before—the belief that, if we work hard enough, we can achieve anything. His legacy, both good and bad, will always shape Malaysia.

And for that, I thank Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The Malaysia we know today would not exist without him.