Fareed Zakaria has worked for ABC, PBS and, according to his CNN bio, “oversees all of Newsweek’s editions abroad and writes a regular column on foreign affairs that appears both in the magazine and in The Washington Post.”
He has his own spot (or stain) on CNN called, “Fareed Zakaria-GPS.”
Information enough to give an inclination as to where his political leanings sway.
First, it is no small thing for a President to be photographed with a book in his hand.
It’s big for the book’s author, and it’s a message from the President.
In May of 2008, Barack Obama was photographed carrying Zakaria’s “The Post American World.”
He has been described as one of those “moderate” muslims which we hear exist by the thousands, but never actually see or hear speaking out against their “extremist” counterparts.
Recently, he penned an article about the “Ground Zero mosque.” It appeared prominently on the Huffington Post, and, of course, in his gig at Snoozeweek.
In the article, he explained how in 2005, he was given the Anti-Defamation League’s “Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize” for his “journalism and championing the values of the First Amendment.”
At the time, the ADL, as have many other institutions and individuals, issued a statement condemning the proposed building of a mosque just yards away from Ground Zero.
In response to the ADL’s position, Mr. Zakaria decided to return the medal to the ADL, saying though he was “delighted” to receive the award then, he could not “in good conscience hold onto the award” after learning of the League’s decision to urge the relocation of the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero.
What one had to do with the other is not quite clear. The award was given to Mr. Zakaria for his supposed journalistic integrity, not because he was some kind of “moderate” Muslim who got along with Jews.
All this illustrates is what most Muslims seem to believe: 1) Muslim first 2) Everything else is secondary.
If he felt so strongly about the ADL’s statement, he could just as easily written or offered a rebuttal as to why he believed them to be wrong about their stance regarding the “community center.”
Instead, he pulled a stunt. One which had attracted some slight attention to himself, and, more importantly to his employer, provided much needed promotion for his little watched show on little watched CNN.
The article in discussion was titled:
Build the Ground Zero Mosque
I believe we should promote Muslim moderates right here in America. And why I’m returning an award to the ADL.
How much more of a contradiction can one express then what he has written in just the two last lines.
The above information is just a bit of background on F. Zak.
In his latest article, posted 6 days before the anniversary of 9/11, he has decided to provide us with insight into why he believes the United States “overreacted” to 9/11.
This article was posted to Newsweek and the Huffington Post on September 5, 2010. Its title:
“What America Has Lost
It’s clear we overreacted to 9/11.”
“Nine years after 9/11, can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda is simply not that deadly a threat? Since that gruesome day in 2001, once governments everywhere began serious countermeasures, Osama bin Laden’s terror network has been unable to launch a single major attack on high-value targets in the United States and Europe.”
True, F. Zak. But it is due to those “overreactions” and “countermeasures” that Al Qaeda has been weakened to the point where they are at now. What’s the arabic word for “success?”
(He conveniently leaves out the Madrid, Spain bombings which killed 191 people and wounded 1800, and the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, which killed 228 people and wounded at least 309. While none were officially organizationally linked to Al Qaeda, all were said to have been inspired by their effectiveness. Not to mention muslims killing muslims on a daily basis during terrorist attacks in dozens of countries.)
“In every recent conflict, the United States has been right about the evil intentions of its adversaries but massively exaggerated their strength. In the 1980s, we thought the Soviet Union was expanding its power and influence when it was on the verge of economic and political bankruptcy.”
Yup. And through all their bullshit saying otherwise, our leaders (Reagan) knew we had to demolish any possible capabilities they had to regain their once formidable status.
Newsflash, F. Zak: WE WON.
Of course, F. Zak leaves out the thousands of ICBMs still pointed at America at that time.
He then goes on to admonish the United States for increasing national security money, assets, and importance. The main thrust of his evidence? “Top Secret America,” a book written by far-left propagandist Washington Post reporter Dana Priest and all-around America-hating nut William Arkin.
Just for reference, here is a snippet of what Arkin wrote concerning our military in 2007:
“We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?” He went on, “But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary – oops sorry, volunteer – force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.”
Such thoughtfully insightful writings from a proud American.
His words define his kind.
Here is the “evidence” F. Zak pulls from the book of these two liberal sweethearts:
“Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. The amount of money spent on intelligence has risen by 250 percent, to $75 billion (and that’s the public number, which is a gross underestimate). That’s more than the rest of the world spends put together. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet–the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built–at a cost of $3.4 billion–to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.”
Wow, Fareed. $75 billion for rebuilding, streamlining, and strengthening of this nation’s security apparatus, after the worst terrorist attack in world history?
Gosh. That’s damned foolish of a nation. Any nation. Damned foolish.
Just for a bit of perspective, two days ago, President Obama announced another “jobs” bill for $50 billion more to spend on infrastructure. Infrastructure. That sounds eerily familiar to the “shovel-ready projects” deemed “infrastructure” of which $105.3 billion was already dedicated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Guess you and your elitist intelligentsia have no qualms with that.
“Some 30,000 people are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications in the United States. And yet no one in Army intelligence noticed that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been making a series of strange threats at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he trained. The father of the Nigerian “Christmas bomber” reported his son’s radicalism to the U.S. Embassy. But that message never made its way to the right people in this vast security apparatus. The plot was foiled only by the bomber’s own incompetence and some alert passengers.”
EEK!! Throw the whole damned thing out the window, Fareed. Thank God we have patriotic Americans as knowledgeable as you to be intimately aware of all the national security needs this country requires. Thank God you are on our side.
“In the past, the U.S. government has built up for wars, assumed emergency authority, and sometimes abused that power, yet always demobilized after the war. But this is a war without end. When do we declare victory? When do the emergency powers cease?”
You just answered your own question, F. Zak:
“But this is a war without end.”
At least not likely soon. It is unlike any in the history of the world. One almost purely won by garnering intelligence, and promptly acting on it.
This is not a war, police action, or conflict which can be won with shear overwhelming power. It is not one in which we wear blue and our enemies wear red. It is not won by holding onto conquered land, inflicting massive amounts of casualties, or solely utilizing the technological superiority of our arsenal which can destroy the enemy before they have a chance to know what hit them.
While many of those just listed can and have definitely helped in beating and thwarting our enemies, the main cause of our success is wiping out and taking control of the places, the people, and opportunities for them to obtain even the slightest foothold of success against us. That is due to the successes of the security measures which you have chosen to frown upon.
I am a fiscal Conservative who believes smaller government is better government.
But if there has to be growth in an area of government which will help to prevent an attack like, smaller or larger, then 9/11, then I think I could make an exception.