Pillars of the news media and foreign policy establishment were scolded Wednesday night on ABC by Jack Keane, a retired four-star General and former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, who asserted both are living “in the past” in their pessimistic warnings about Iraq. Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, had asserted that “the American Army has presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans.” For World News, anchor Charles Gibson gathered Zakaria, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Keane to assess the road ahead in Iraq. Zakaria charged: “One of the dirty little secrets about Iraq is that Iraq has increasingly been ethnically cleansed. It's sad to say, but the American Army has presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans. When people say bad things are going to happen if we leave, bad things have already happened. Where were you for the last four years?” Haass maintained: “We should be realistic. Iraq is likely to be a messy and slightly dysfunctional country for the foreseeable future.”
Keane pounced: “Both of you are really not describing what's happening in Iraq. I mean, you're in the past, to be quite frank about it. The Sunni insurgency has gone through a conversion. They have thrown the towel in. They have now saddled up along side of us...”
ABCNews.com has posted a transcript of the entire session which includes portions not aired.
Back in 2005, Zakaria highlighted a description of President Bush as a less rational “Ayatollah.”
The February 2, 2005 MRC CyberAlert recounted:
Prompting cheers from the audience, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, Zakaria passed along how an Iraqi politician told him that "there are two Grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Bush and Sistani -- and Sistani seems the more rational."...
...[I]n a discussion about how the Shia have refrained from attacking Sunnis, Stewart described Ayatollah Sistani as "seemingly a very reasonable man."
That cued Zakaria, a regular panelist on ABC's This Week, to recall: "He seems to be a very reasonable guy. There's an Iraqi politician who said to me, I quote him in last week's column, he said 'there are two grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Bush and Sistani and Sistani seems the more rational.'"...
He did indeed conclude an article, in the January 24 Newsweek, with the same anecdote he recounted on the Daily Show: "In the words of one of his [Sistani's] aides, 'the representation of our Sunni brethren in the coming government must be effective, regardless of the results of the elections.' As an Iraqi politician said to me, 'There are currently two Grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Sistani and Bush. Most of us feel that Sistani is the more rational.'"
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth provided these highlights from what aired on the September 5 World News on ABC:
CHARLES GIBSON: So let's frame this around two central questions: How do we leave, and when do we start? First of all, is the President right that leaving would be a disaster?
RETIRED GENERAL JACK KEANE: Well, I think leaving precipitously before we have the kind of security that we have to have in place would clearly be a disaster -- particularly now, when we've made some significant progress. Precipitous withdrawal makes no sense in my judgement, and what we should do is begin to leave, and then go back to the pre-surge level forces. I think we can do that in '08 for sure.
...
GIBSON: If we go through some sort of a reduction strategy, are we opening things up for some kind of genocide, ethnic cleansing, that will go on, and we'll simply have 50, 60, 70,000 troops standing by and watching this?
FAREED ZAKARIA, NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL: No, because one of the dirty little secrets about Iraq is that Iraq has increasingly been ethnically cleansed. It's sad to say, but the American Army has presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans. When people say bad things are going to happen if we leave, bad things have already happened. Where were you for the last four years?
RICHARD HAASS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: But we should be realistic. Iraq is likely to be a messy and slightly dysfunctional country for the foreseeable future.
KEANE: Both of you are really not describing what's happening in Iraq. I mean, you're in the past, to be quite frank about it. The Sunni insurgency has gone through a conversion. They have thrown the towel in. They have now saddled up along side of us, and they want to protect their communities, but they don't want separate militia to do it. They're going to do it as members of the Iraqi security forces, which is very, very encouraging.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center



Prompting cheers from the audience, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, Zakaria passed along how an Iraqi politician told him that "there are two Grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Bush and Sistani -- and Sistani seems the more rational."...
CHARLES GIBSON: So let's frame this around two central questions: How do we leave, and when do we start? First of all, is the President right that leaving would be a disaster?














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why is FAREED ZAKARIA on
September 5, 2007 - 21:53 ET by sembyWhy is FAREED ZAKARIA on a political talk show in this country. A journalist speak the facts not lies like he is doing!
He hates America and bashes it every chance he can. Obviously he is more comfortable in his pent house then taking a trip over there.
Disgraceful, media SUCKS!
The tale of the tape
September 5, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Lame CherryIn being familiar with Gen. Keane, he is the only American on that panel, LITERALLY.
For a review, Zakaria, Gibson and Haass all work for the same guy in David Rockefeller of the infamous banking cartel which leveraged America into debt on European Rothschild bribery almost a century ago in starting the illegal federal reserve.
Zakaria would not be editor of a clay tablet in Iraq if he had not been groomed by the cartel to promote the international message. Gibson would not have gotten his job if he had not sold out long ago and Haass is the CFR frontman to do the Rockefeller bidding.
Now that the players are a whose who, we can look at Saddam's billions in bribes and money ended up in the Rockefeller banking cartel along with the Europeans when Bill Clinton signed off on the oil for bribery campaign which netted his Swiss accounts 50 million thanks to Marc Rich the money launderer of the Rothschilds.
Saddam was these people's golden oil goose and they were furious that Bush 43 took him out and all that money. It has been the mission of the Rockefeller cartel to bring about all this bad Iraq press.
I would give a pretty penny to trace the million dollar paychecks of these 3, because while they are comrades in communism they don't work for free and they don't stay on the reservation for free either. There are always payoffs of some kind to keep the children in line and the bigger they are the bigger the blackmail.
So the ABC show as 3 sore Rockefeller employees that Bush took their billion dollar goose out against Keane......once again though the American wiped the floor with them though.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"..the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans."
September 5, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Gary Hall"..the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans."
I suspect that FAREED ZAKARIA is aware of other "dirty little secrets" in the world. He has spoken of them in the past.
Perhaps he slipped or misspoke. He should know that the ethnic cleansing, genocide, death from civil war, refugees and death and disease from starvation in Africa's DR Congo's conflict, from 1998 to 2001 (and yes, it continues), was the worst in the world since "the Balkans [1995]."
In the 1998 spill over from the 1994 Rwandan genocide (which a complacent Pres. Bill Clinton had been forced to apologize for and promise to the people of the region - "Never Again") the BBC has called the estimated 4 1/2 million deaths the most since WW 11. One might think that Newsweek would know of such things.
During the 1990's, verified by Sec. of State Albright, an estimated 500,000 children are said to have died as a direct result of the UN sanctions in Iraq. No one has claimed that such number of civilians (including children) have died in Iraq, not even nuts like Alec Baldwin. Was that 1/2 million prior to the Balkan's genocide, just after, or split on either side of the Balkan's genocide?
We do now that the Clinton administration 1999 claims of perhaps 200,000 killed in a genocide in Kosovo, was only little lie, in an effort to garner up support for the unilateral bombing of civilian infrastructure in Belgrade. The Hague puts the number at less than 6,000. Most of the refugee crisis in the Kosovo crisis occured as a result of the US entry into the fray.
Well, then again, perhaps Zakaria didn't simply misspeak. Perhaps in the midst of his partisan confusion, he punted.
On an aside. Is it not interesting that there is this immense international attention focused on getting Bush to do more about the Darfur situation, where some 200-250,000 have died in the past several years, yet I bet not a soul would remember any such attention focused on holding a President Bill Clinton accountable to his promise of "Never Again" in the DR Congo.
An intersting piece: The Tragedy in Central Africa
What about the Kurds?
September 5, 2007 - 23:25 ET by jay_1975Of course it's not like Saddam ever tried to kill all of the Kurds for their oil rich land right? Zakaria is a revisionist douche bag. One of my Shiite interpreters told me that in some parts of Baghdad they would have "Shiite Round-up Days" where Sunni's could round up the Shiites that they had a dispute with and could put them through a mock "trial" before the guilty verdict, which always resulted in execution. But hey, America is the bad guy right?
jay, I saw your earlier
September 5, 2007 - 23:42 ET by Blondejay,
I saw your earlier dialog here...and was so upset by the reaction to it that I didn't respond.
I was confused by the adverse reaction I saw. And quite frankly, embarrassed by my fellow NB'ers' replies to you. So I just kind of let it sit there (as I do, when I'm not quite sure what I want to say or do).
I just wanted to let you know, though, that I admire you for posting a differing point of view when asked about how things are going in Iraq. That was a brave thing to say. For someone in your position.
I was more than shocked that you were attacked as a troll. I found everything you said to be credible. Doing your duty, even though you're not sold on it.
So, I thank you for your insights. What you posted is about 95% in opposition to what I have read, and heard (from my friends who've been there)....but yours is a valid POV.
So, thanks for telling us (me) what you think it is. I shall keep your opinion in mind as I continue to evaluate for myself the information I get.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I appreciate that. I am kind
September 6, 2007 - 00:04 ET by jay_1975I appreciate that. I am kind of used to personal attacks (especially when I post on Liberal sites) but I just remain calm and speak about what I know. I have trust in my fellow Soldiers and know that we will always accomplish the mission given. Just need those that order us to give us the right mission, or rather objectives. The mission is simple (maybe plain?), win in Iraq. The individual objectives need to be evaluated on some parts. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. I have little to no faith in the current Iraqi government but I willingly place my faith in the tribal leaders. There are towns untouched by us who have governed themselves with no conflict and actually told us that we weren't needed. One such town had every group represented including Christians (not too many there, but some). Those towns are the models of success and they did it themselves. An equal distribution of power is needed but the old scars run deep there.
Jay, if I have misjudged
September 6, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Roger the ShrubberJay, if I have misjudged you, I apologize.
No need to apologize.
September 6, 2007 - 17:29 ET by jay_1975No need to apologize.
This may be banworthy, but
September 5, 2007 - 23:44 ET by OIFveteranThis may be banworthy, but bottom line up front...
If the followers of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage are deadset on killing people, I would much rather them be killing each other than people who don't follow a pedophile....just sayin'
<insert something clever>
Sunnis now "saddled up" with us
September 6, 2007 - 00:33 ET by patrick youngWe are being played by all sides. Look at the history of the leadership (political and military) in South Vietnam. Everybody had their hands out, and would do and say whatever we wanted them to as long as the money flowed in.
I'm not an expert on the Middle East, but I think we are disliked, actually hated, by both Shiite and Sunni alike. Yes, they'll take our guns, and they will certainly accept our money. And the higher ups will get their fingers into the fat contracts to build some more P.R. stuff (schools, electrification, hospitals, etc.) but their priority will be to steal as much as possible, not server their fellow Iraqis.
I truly feel that if one doesn't look at the tremendous fortunes being made by this war, the military angle is not relevant. We are going to leave certainly, sooner or later, and all sides are getting from us what they can.
Do we truly believe that we have made "friends" of one group (Sunnis) in Iraq? Do we truly beleive they've seen the light, now see things"our way", and believe in the same goals OUR government has for Iraq.?
C'mon folks, that's pretty unlikely.
Have a good'n
Patrick :-)
Is there anyone who doesn't
September 6, 2007 - 09:12 ET by kathleenirishIs there anyone who doesn't hate us?
No surprise. They seem to hate each other even more within the Islamic world. "Religion of Peace", my arse!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Not!
September 6, 2007 - 10:17 ET by pbanks7My son was there for the first 11 months of the war, the last 4 in Baghdad. People would come up to him, hug or simply touch him, and say, "I love you." When I asked him "How do you say I love you in Arabic?" his reply was, "I don't know, they said it in American." If that's a sign of peoples' hate, I'll take it.
He also said about 65% of the people there were glad we were there, 25% indifferent, 10% hate. Guess which ones' interviews get aired by the MSM?
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.