Fareed Zakaria Praises Obama's Mideast Foreign Policy 'Restraint'
CNN foreign affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria – who has recently had off-the-record conversations with President Obama on foreign issues – noted the president's "restraint" in his dealing with the "Arab Spring" and the conflict in Libya Wednesday. Zakaria previously gave a thumbs-up for Obama's Mideast speech in May and later defended the president's plan for removing American troops from Afghanistan.
The point-of-note is that this is the same analyst whom, according to the New York Times, President Obama "sounded out" while shaping his foreign policy. The two simply had "off-the-record" conversations on foreign issues, according to Zakaria, and the CNN host claimed he was not an advisor to the President.
However, he continuing doling out good grades to the administration's foreign policy Wednesday on the blog for his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria GPS. He insisted the Obama administration "is more realist than people are willing to acknowledge" in its dealings with the Middle East. The analyst then gave a rundown of the administration's foreign policy toward certain Mideast countries, highlighting certain points for praise.
The foreign affairs analyst was positive toward Obama's cautious approach with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, framing it as an "incremental" policy focused on the "long-run."
Zakaria also defended Obama's controversial military action in Libya, deeming it "carefully-calculated" and "incremental." Overall, Zakaria lauded Obama's Mideast policy as an "appropriately practical approach," seeming to fend off attacks on the administration's policy by claiming that its fruits will come about in the long-term.
It was this paragraph in the May 11 edition of the Times that broke the news of Zakaria's conversations with the president:
At night in the family residence, an adviser said, Mr. Obama often surfs the blogs of experts on Arab affairs or regional news sites to get a local flavor for events. He has sounded out prominent journalists like Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine and CNN and Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist at The New York Times, regarding their visits to the region. "He is searching for a way to pull back and weave a larger picture," Mr. Zakaria said.
However, that news which circulated around the internet still raises questions every time Zakaria comments on Obama's foreign policy. How much information did he share, and what perspective did he provide Obama? Did it in any way lend to his overall positive critique of the president's foreign policy speeches?
To read Zakaria's entire blog post, click here.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Only one thing left
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:25pm.
"Fareed Zakaria Praises Obama's Stool" tomorrow on CNN.
... all my relevant comments ...
Submitted by Fredy on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:52pm.
... gone in 6 seconds!
You're a sick man and you
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:33am.
You're a sick man and you need help, BK!!! Of course, since this 'foreign policy expert' Mooooooooooooooooooslem is also an advisor to Boy bin Barry, he might be praising his own stool as well!!! And since they both are so full of crap, it's probably pretty easy for them to do..................
Is "restraint" a new synonym for "incompetent"?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 6:39pm.
Ear Leader sat on the bench while Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and Syria first started to foment. After that we have absolutely no substantive action taken towards Iran's advancing nuclear program or North Korea's festering Stalinist regime while it takes action against a close ally. Lest we forget, his administration has managed to offend the British and dare to dictate Israel's national policies. If incompetence and restraint are now synonyms, that is the only way Imam Fareed's brainless cheerleading would be correct.
Of course Zakaria approves of Obama's foreign policy...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:10pm.
He may very well be one of the incompetent fools who are advising him to do what he's doing.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
WH Spokesman Zakaria
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:11pm.
Any pretense at credibility and integrity that this guy may have had evaporated when he admitted that he has advised the President on several occasions.
I didn't know "restraint" was
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:23pm.
I didn't know "restraint" was a synonym for "waffling."
Obama has only one FP goal in the ME region that I can detect...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:28pm.
...and that is to do all he can to remove the "moderate" Arab leaders and see to it that they are replaced with hard-core, true-believing, flaming Israel haters who have the stamp of approval of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Because that is exactly what he is doing.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Damned right
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:46pm.
You're damned right, Dave, after all, they opened official contact and dialogue with the MB last week and they had been in contact with DuhOne unofficially several times in the last year alone. Zakaria is one of the ring leaders and if I didn't know better, I can't help but wonder if there are hidden messages in what he says when he says it because otherwise, it's, as I like to say, a bunch of unmitigated balderdash.
To put it in simpler terms for those of you from Rio Linda, it flies in the face of reality.
-Jon
Check with Norquist....
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 7:58pm.
who is not only an authority on taxes, but, according to David Horowitz, enjoys a special relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Jer
That may be true, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:10pm.
but Norquist isn't the President, is he? He's not "incrementally" increasing the crap that's going on in Libya, is he? We watched LBJ "incrementally" increase the troops in Viet Nam, and the bombing of the North, that worked out so well for the U.S., didn't it?
I'll grant you that, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:03pm.
but unlike Vietnam where Johnson rapidly enlarged our pre-existing military footprint, the Libyan intervention has been notable for the limited and subordinate role of the US. There is no indication the administration envisions any significant escalation, and neither Congress nor the American public would stand for it. They are "warred out", and a tough economy only adds to the weariness.
Jer
True, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:12pm.
but other than hitting the links, this President doesn't do anything rapidly. 16 hours comes to mind. And, he picked the wrong fight, Syria has killed far more of it's own people than Libya, yet that doesn't concern him. Would that be because Syrai launders the money for Iran, that ends up in Gaza, that will probably end up in the Obama campaign coffers?
The MB allied itself with the Nazis and has done nothing to disavow that connection in the 70 years, or so, that have followed, and yet, the administration has "contacts" with them. "Contacts"? I wouldn't be surprised if the State Dept wasn't financing them.
Not you too, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:46pm.
with the 16 hr nonsense. I really expected you would take a less partisan 'let's-find-something-to-criticize' view of the OBL take down.
I'm well aware of the unsavory MB history, but sometimes one has to play the hand that's dealt. And, in the spirit of partisanship, I suppose I could mention that GWB's administration took a far more active role in destabilizing Mubarek. So there.
Jer
Did he, or did he not
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:53pm.
take 16 hours to make up his mind? If you can provide proof that he didn't, I'll take the 16 hour reference back. I thought it was pretty much accepted by left and right, he sought the counsel of that stellar mind on national security, Valerie Jarret, and took that long to make a decision. If he did, some think that Panetta painted him into a corner. That he gave the go-ahead, finally, was a good thing. It's the process that I question.
As for your assertion that GWB took " a far more active role", I don't recall GWB having the power to say that "Mubarak must go", as he wasn't the occupant of the White House, at the time.
Absolutely...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:08am.
and I'm glad he did. It was a highly risky exercise for which failure would have carried with it immensely negative geopolitical consequences and a few more hours of deliberation had no deleterious impact operationally.
I think the only ones who have slammed him for it are the usual suspects from the righty blogosphere and Limbaugh nation. I don't recall any GOP congresspersons critical of the 16-hr interregnum, but there may have been a couple. Maybe you can supply me with the quotes.
Jer
Nice try at deflection, I wasn't talking congressmen and women
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 12:34am.
being critical of the lag.
"Deleterious impact", do you know for a fact that Al Zawhiri wasn't there the previous day? If he had moved earlier, might they have bagged #1 and #2? We'll never know, will we?
As for "slamming him", yeah, I am. He made a political calculation, based on what Jarret was telling him. He dithered for 16 hours, much like he dithered for 6-9 months over Afghanistan.
And, I still believe he was forced to move by Panetta, I don't believe he wanted to, but that's just my opinion.
And now, it comes out that the man who claimed to have a plan to get the US out of Iraq by March of '08, may, in fact, be considering leaving troops there past the absolute, final withdrawal date. I'd bet that Code Pink, when they get back from their failed flotilla, will be outraged.
Forgodsakes, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:07am.
you're not regugitating the loopy White House "Insider's" preposterous fable peddled by Pamela "the Birther" Geller, are you? Because that's where I recall the "Jarret pulling the strings on the OBL decision" BS originated. There and Ace of Spades.
Good grief.
Jer
Actually, Jer, it's
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 9:00pm.
For God's sake, and no, I didn't reference Pamela Geller. There is more than one person stating that Jarret was "involved" in the decision. If you have a source who indicates that this is, in no way true, not possible, I'd be more than happy to read it. Let me rephrase just a bit, a neutral, unbiased source.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 5:27pm.
When I checked into the source of the 'Jarrett the puppet master' claim at the time, all roads led back to the so-called WH "Insider". Obviously, you heard or read it repeated some place. Tell me where and that will give us a starting point from which to track its origin.
Jer
Nope, the game isn't played
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:41am.
that way, Jer. Like I said, if you have an unbiased source, give it to me. If it totally and irrefutably debunks the notion that Jarret had a hand in the deliberations over a military operation, I'll gladly acknowledge it.
Yes, the game is played that way, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 4:01pm.
You're asking me to provide irrefutable evidence that an event didn't happen. I have read numerous accounts chronicling the meetings of the principals [which included the President]-- and the discussions among them--leading up to the final go ahead for the OBL mission. Not one of them mentioned the Jarrett involvement which you have described, but you could always insist those articles have omitted and covered up her political string-pulling role (and in effect demand that I prove a negative).
The only source for your allegations which I encountered at the time was the WH "Insider" whose claims concerning Jarret were then repeated by Geller and others. You are making the positive assertion about Jarret's role and politicization of the OBL decision. I am asking you to source your assertion. The onus is on you. You may decline it if you wish, but that's how the game is played.
Jer
So, we seem to be at
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:23pm.
an impasse, Jer. Cuz, I don't dance to the tune that you play. Link me one unbiased source that says that Jarret wasn't there, didn't participate, and I'll gladly admit you were right. Last time I checked, you weren't the rules master around here, so pardon me, but I don thin so, amigo.
So, Ace of Spades is not a credible source of anything? But, in your posts you tell us that HuffPo is?
And, when it comes down to it, we're still talking 16 hours, when someone else was excoriated for 7 minutes. And, we know that Rove wasn't next to Bush during that time, because there were cameras there.
Then you simply don't dance, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:58pm.
because that is the tune everybody plays.
What if I read on some lefty blogs a claim reported by an alleged super-secret WH insider--and I then repeated--that George Bush once privately referred to Cheney as an "insufferable jerk", and when challenged by you I replied "prove that he didn't". Same deal.
Jer
btw...you are wrong about my representations about HuffPo. I've said that since the site began total moderation and monitoring of all comments a couple of years ago, there is no longer the flaming and verbal abuse that once proliferated in the comment section. I said NOTHING about HuffPo as a source.
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:15pm.
Pffffft !!
Obama - pos.
Jarrett - same.
You are forever mentioning HuffPo, but now dance to the tune called the barrister's boogie. Also known as the lawyer's shuffle.
Pfffft !!!
Pffft is in place of the words I can't use.
MD
md...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:21pm.
I'm trying to dance with UpNorth. Quit cutting in. But, since you're here, note my correction of UpNorth re HuffPo. It applies to you, too.
Jer
Your corrections, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:28pm.
as always, are your own interpretations of what you say, state, or post.
That doesn't mean anyone has to take them for gospel.
MD
It would be helpful if the interpretations of others
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:35pm.
were at least based on facts. Please show me where I've touted HuffPo as a source.
Jer
Does it escape you, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 12:28am.
that after mentioning HuffPo lebenty leben times in order to edify us dull conservatives as to how clean an operation they now run, that the fact you mention having been there and "read" there, means that you are, ipso facto, using them as a source?
If you are not using them as a source, then you must have made that sh*t up.
MD
If you say so, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 12:31am.
Jer
OK, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 9:26am.
having perused the intertubes and finding most articles refer back to the "WH insider", that's what I'll go with. Along with all the references to the "insider", I found nothing to refute the story.
Seems contradictory to me, for years we were told that "unnamed sources" were as good as those who actually ID'd themselves, now that the jackboot is on the other foot, we're told that an unnamed source is just someone lying. Is that a correct summation, Jer? To quote, "good grief".
Now, if you can point me to someone who went on the record, saying this is all made up, that Valerie Jarret wasn't there, and said nothing about the operation, other than, perhaps, the taxpayer funded internet czar who's refuting all those nasty things said about Obama, please do.
Obama is a---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:13am.
pos, but Jer is of a mind that he isn't.
Liberals are that way; gotta attempt every chance they get to try and lighten the load of that Messiah turned albatross hanging around their neck..
That means polishing the turd at every opportunity.
I would point out that it is a thankless undertaking, and that there is always going to be room under Obama's bus for all manner of acolytes, but it is becoming quite apparent that that liberals are into masochism.
At least the ones who hang around NB's. :o)
MD
Oh, c'mon, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:31am.
Lyndon LaRouche (is he still alive?) is as reputable a source as that make believe White House "Insider". And he's the source who concocted, excuse me, reported the Jarrett/Obama/OBL fairy tale, excuse me, scoop.
Jer.
C'mon, yourself, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:41am.
I'm merely taking the opportunity to give you a hard time, which is fun - ;o) - ; and to rag on that worthless, lying pos in the Oval Office.
It is bad enough that he is a poseur, he is also an arrogant one without justification for being that way except in his own warped image of himself.
I know you love him dearly, but there are some of us who do not.
Don't take it personally.
On second thought, go ahead and do so; as those who so admire him inflicted he and his stench upon the rest of us.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:42am.
I just cain't help myself. I heart Barack Hussein Obama...um, um, um!
Jer
And,
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:44am.
gotta call it a night. Turn out the lights.
Jer
Ok, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:47am.
catch you on the next round.
MD
Oh yeah, md? You've been trying for two years now...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:56am.
what makes you think you'll be any more successful the next round?
;-)
BTW, Brawley: 1987 Rosenbaum: 1991 Same era of Sharpton's consistent repugnance
Now, good night! dammit,
Jer
Repugnance doesn't go away, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 2:23am.
same as Sharpton won't.
The eternal kvetcher.
He must be a liberal.
MD
You know what, I could care
Submitted by buddyc on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:13pm.
You know what, I could care less what some idiot like Fareed says. But when he agrees to teabag Anderson Cooper on his show, let me know. I will watch that.
Go Home ARAB!
Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:15pm.
This incompetent immigrant needs to go back to his 3rd world country. And take client #9 with him.
Give me a break
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:20pm.
"He has sounded out prominent journalists like Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine and CNN and Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist at The New York Times, regarding their visits to the region."
I hear the Love Boat theme music in the background!!!!
Please! His first mistake was referring to Zakaria as a journalist.
Why are we even talking about this clown?
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:43pm.
He is an Obama shill and an Arab apologist, not to mention a classic Israeli hater. A journalist he is not.
Are you saying his trademark demonic stare is a dealbreaker?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:22pm.
I dunno, I sometimes find myself strangely transfixed like a cobra...°¡®†åƒ˚˜ß…
Read NB's motto
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:18am.
Why are we talking about Zakaria? Because he, as an "Obama shill", "Arab apologist", and "Israeli hater" has a show on a "mainstream" cable news network - that's why we're talking about him. If he wasn't all those things - we wouldn't be - except maybe in a positive way. You sort of answered your own question.
Zakaria obviously dropped
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 11:58pm.
Zakaria obviously dropped this, "I am so important, the president confides in me" crap to make himself look important. I am convinced!
However, what it reveals is the hundreds of billions of dollars that our tax dollars buy for all manner of intelligence is lost on duhbama. Instead, he gets his "intelligence" from a bunch of socialist propagandists masquerading as jouranlists.
This points to a disturbing pattern of dimocrat presidents. During clintoon's first term, R. James Woosley was his CIA chief. Sometime after 9/11, Woosley intimated in an interview that he had briefed clintoon exactly twice the entire time he was the director. clintoon just wasn't interested in what he had to say. Is it any wonder that clintoon missed entirely the fomenting terrorist threat in the middle east?
Fast forward to the present. We are engaged against a 5th rate military in Libya for months now with little to show for it. duhbama's strategery is to put NATO in charge? NATO is made up of a a group of countries that last went to war in the late 1930's.
Of course, the lie is that they have the resource to even put an air patrol in the skies over Libya. Think about it for a moment. To put four F-16s over Libya requires 18 tanker sorties to keep them aloft. If the F-16s use their afterburners, we are talking over 30 sorties to keep them aloft. Look over the tanker capability of the air forces "engaged" in Libya. Yeah, that's right. Only the US has these tremendous resources. Yet, we put a bunch of pussies in charge of the effort in Libya.
This is simply embarrasing and sad.
Recall President Bush simply invaded Iraq and Ghadafi, the moron, came to him to surrender his nuclear weapons program. Not a shot was fired in his direction.
if ($390,000,000,000 ==
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 1:03am.
if ($390,000,000,000 == $1,700,000,000,000)
{
talking_head = IDIOT;
SetNoseColor(BROWN);
}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
From what I have observed,
Submitted by 4eyes50 on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 8:57am.
obiwan's "foriegn policy" consists of this: he and his "advisors" gather together with their beer and pretzels and play "RISK" until the wee hours. As with everything else to these people, ours and the rest of the worlds' lives are just a game to them.