« WSJ: "The Obama Economy" | Main | Koran burning church linked to Westboro Baptist »

Our 9/11 Temper Tantrum

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.)

Another gem:

"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.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40048.

Comments (14)

As far as his returning the... (Below threshold)

As far as his returning the ADL medal, he was just waiting for the excuse to do so. After all, the medal is infected with "Jew cooties". It is more objectionable for him to be forced to have accepted it with a pretense of civility than it was for President Obama to keep the sculpture of Winston Churchill. He is probably grateful to the ADL for giving him the excuse that he was searching for.

Dear Fareed Zakaria, how wi... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Dear Fareed Zakaria, how will you respond to my tearing the hateful verses that incite violence out of the koran and burn them?

How's your tolerance for that?

How bout sending bibles to troops in muslim countries? Any tolerance for that.

Why should we tolerate the ideology of intolerance?

No wonder you write for News Weak, the bankrupt rag sold for a dollar.

This man is an agent of the... (Below threshold)
epador:

This man is an agent of the enemy. We are just too panty-waist to admit it.

But if there has t... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
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.

Absolutely. This is one thing that the government is supposed to do and generally does well.

I remember all of the talking heads telling us it was "when, not if" another attack was coming after September 11.

So far, so good. That's due to the restructuring and added funding of intelligence.

Fareeb works for Al jazeer... (Below threshold)
914:

Fareeb works for Al jazeera.

"When do we declare victory... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"When do we declare victory? When do the emergency powers cease?"

Hey Zak! How about when the madrassas stop preaching hatred and recruiting loser suicide bombers and calling them 'martyrs'.

About the only thing you can say positive is that at least you're clearing out the shallow end of the gene pool.

I dunno.If it was ... (Below threshold)
fustian:

I dunno.

If it was me and I was a Muslim that wanted dialog with non-Muslims by building a "community center" at Ground Zero and I found out very quickly the anger such a thing promoted, I think I'd be more than amenable to moving it.

"Help me find a new site we can all be happy with, I'd say. Let's do this together."

Since they won't, I have to think that this has nothing to do with dialog, and everything to do with Muslim triumph.

You guys want to talk to us?

Move the thing.

I am a fiscal Conservati... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I am a fiscal Conservative who believes smaller government is better government. But then I think I could make an exception

That is quite an expensive exception, that has been very convenient to the Pentagon. I think Rick is really saying, I am fiscal conservative with liberal things I don't like but unfiscal with conservative things I do like, such as a huge defense bill, that accounts for what the entire rest of the world spends on defense.

The reality, with that accomodation, is you are going to continue to get, a surge in military spending, as you have since 1998-before 9-11, it was something else, expensive new weapons procurements.

'the Pentagon's Runaway Budget',

At present,(written in March, 2010 only a little modified as the Afghanistan war continues to take its toll) both Democratic and Republican leaders are disinclined -- each for their own reasons -- to press for Pentagon budget reform and restraint.There is little political gain in it, and much political risk.(see how Zakaria gets tarred and feathered).

A permissive spending environment has been a necessary precondition for Pentagon bloat. Emerging fiscal realities may soon focus more critical attention on how the nation allocates its resources among competing goals, military and non-military. And the recent freeze on most discretionary spending suggests the contours of the coming battle: It will be the Pentagon versus everything else.

In this light, our most important finding is that much of the surge in Pentagon spending since 1998 has been a matter of choice and will, not a matter of national security "requirements."

I think that the budget cuts or freeze in discretionary spending should apply to every departament, NO exceptions, including defense, probaly the most bloated and wasteful, but then I am not a fiscal Conservative.

Crickmore, You'll find lit... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Crickmore, You'll find little support for trimming the defense budget when the entitlements go way beyond it in terms of expense and when Health care is even more than all of it put together.

As for when do we declare victory? When the last non-moderate muslim breathes his last. Seriously. THe extremists on their side figure that they've been fighting this war since the 7th century. We should take that perspective when fighting back.

Epador, could you be mistak... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Epador, could you be mistaking agency for just a really solid case of "liberal nuance?" They look very much the same.

There is nothing the Execut... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

There is nothing the Executive/Congress can do about entitlements or very little...Yes, health care costs will continue to escalate Obamacare or no Obamacare, including VA health care benefits which converge in both these high-spending areas.

Eventually, even the Pentagon will face real scrutiny, but you are right it will probably be among the last and not until the whole system is almost untenable. Isn't this how we defeated the Soviets we pushed them into unsustainable military budgets (theirs) and how the Barbarians helped to bring down the Roman empire? Could this be part of the al-Qaeda strategy?

"Could this be part of the ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Could this be part of the al-Qaeda strategy? "

Dunno Steve. Are you implying that obama works for al qaida?

Seriously, the reason the soviet union collapsed was not solely because of excessive military spending. It was because a centrally planned economy doesn't work. No one can possibly understand the vast volumes of information to properly understand a nation's economy and the future directions of innovation. The USSR and its leaders naively believed that they could do so.

The vast amounts of social spending and inept management by government bureaucrats spelled doom for the soviets. The military spending was merely the last straw. When they realized that the economic might of the US would allow for our nation to spend wildly on the military and they could never hope to keep up with their feeble centrally planned communism they knew the game was up.

For those that remember Reagan did increase government spending significantly, but he also tripled government revenues while cutting taxes at the same time. Once again anyone paying attention would have realized that this was a complete refutation of Keynesianism.

Obama believes that a centrally planned economy will work, despite many historical examples of failure. He believes that Keynesian economics will work despite historic evidence to the contrary and the failure of his programs. If there is anything that has driven this country to the brink of collapse it is his policies which have taken a bad situation and turned it into a dire one.

Steve, "I am a ... (Below threshold)

Steve,

"I am a fiscal Conservative who believes smaller government is better government. But then I think I could make an exception"

Steve,

That's not the quote. THIS is the quote:

"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."

By cutting that line out, you are ignoring the primary argument Shawn is making.

How much more evidence do w... (Below threshold)
oldpuppymax:

How much more evidence do we need that American Jews are leftists FIRST, Jews only when convenient or profitable.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy