Go Home

Fareed Zakaria GPS. CNN

3 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Fareed Zakaria: Grow Up, Liberals!

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (242)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2651)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Karoli)

Now, don't get me wrong: I actually kind of like Fareed Zakaria's take most of the time. I like that he offers up a global perspective, because I think there's little to be gained by closing our eyes to our place within the community of nations. He's looked at issues at a deeper level than most Sunday shows and brought in dissenting voices.

But boy, do I think he's off on this one. On a Charlie Rose show earlier in the week, author and psychologist Drew Westen (based on his NYTimes Op-Ed) gave a fairly common and impassioned argument within the progressive community of President Obama's performance so far:

Drew Westen: I guess I’ll start by saying just from that clip that you just played, which I hadn’t heard before but I think it’s a prime example is that the President blamed the problem on Congress. He didn’t say - and he blamed the problem on the lack of quote/unquote "Congress" to - to be able to - to negotiate in good faith and to compromise.

The problem is actually isn’t the problem in Congress, it’s the problem that one side of Congress is actually not willing to negotiate and the other side was willing to negotiate away most of its core principles.

So that kind of rhetoric may help the President in his re-election efforts, looking like he is the grown-up who’s above the fray. But in fact what he’s just done is actually to take one more shot at his own party, which is trying to be incredibly conciliatory along with him and they’re getting pretty tired of what a lot of them feel is one capitulation after another on core principles.

Charlie Rose: And you want him to do what?

Drew Westen: I want him to act like a Democrat. No, I take - I take that back. I’d like to him to act like a Republican, which is to have some convictions and stick with it. Stick with them....
"

And while it's inarguable that Obama has managed to get some big ticket Democratic items, like health care reform, it's always come at the cost of giving away the most progressive plank before negotiations even begin. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic argued on the same show that Westen is ahistoric and full of nonsense. Zakaria, coming distinctly on the same side as Chait, posits it is that success Obama has realized--compromised though it may be--that means that liberals are being entirely too unreasonable in their expectations.

I think that liberals need to grow up. As "The New Republic's" Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda.

In this view, write Chait, every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macro economic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public policy - are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. This does happen if you're watching the movie "The American President," but not if you're actually watching what goes on in Washington.

Strawman, party of two? Westen's Op-Ed did not place that much significance on soaring rhetoric, only to note that the speeches that stirred a nation to get out to vote for Obama has not as yet seemed to match his actual actions. No, liberals aren't upset that he doesn't make more heartwarming speeches. Liberals are upset that Obama's tactics to negotiate in the conditions Zakaria describes is to start out giving the other side more than 50% of what they want and move further to the right from there. But that's a much harder position to defend, so Chait and Zakaria create a strawman to make liberals look unreasonable. Further, there is no indication--as Zakaria asserts--that Americans are concerned with jobs AND deficit spending. Americans care about their jobs and the economy vis a vis whether they'll have a job in the foreseeable future. The deficit is a concern of Beltway Villager academics, not average Americans.

To be fair, I have my own issues with some of the left's criticism of Obama too, because it appears to completely ignore the political environment we're in and how close the votes have been. I also think it's important to remember what the President can legally do and what is the provenance of Congress.

But it's the dismissive, condescending attitude of Zakaria towards liberal concerns that grates. I don't think that liberals hoping to see a little more strength and leadership from Obama is childish. I think taking the country to the brink of default is childish. I think intransigence against making the very top income earners pay their fair share is childish. I think feeding into racism by questioning whether the President was born in this country is childish.

But wanting the President to not ape and accept right wing memes that have driven the country into the economic wasteland we're in? There's nothing childish about it.



Condoleezza Rice On Donald Rumsfeld: He's a "Grumpy Guy"

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (212)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1942)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

God, I am enjoying the circular firing squad that is the Bush administration struggling to lift their individual heads above the slime that surrounds them. Implicit in this clamoring is the acknowledgment that they know they are part of this slime. Donald Rumsfeld is one of the first out of the gate to try to rehab his image and did so by going after the two members of the Bush administration who went out with the highest approval ratings, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice:

In his first television interview since leaving public service in 2006, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gives candid criticism of his fellow Bush administration officials, former Secretary of States Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. [..]

Powell, President George W. Bush's first secretary of state, "did not, in my view, do a good job of managing the people under him," Rumsfeld said [..]."There was a lot of leaking out of the State Department, and the president knew it," he reportedly said. "And it was unhelpful. And most of it ended up making the State Department look good. We didn't do that in the Pentagon. I insisted we not do it."

Rumsfeld was criticized during his tenure as defense secretary for his tight rein on information relating to the war on terrorism. This week, in conjunction with the release of his new memoir "Known and Unknown," Rumsfeld is releasing online nearly 2,000 documents from his career in public service. They span his time in Congress, in the Ford and Nixon administrations, the 9/11 attacks and the build up to the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld acknowledged that "the intelligence was certainly wrong" with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, he said that the military and the Bush administration -- including Powell -- had faith in the intelligence at the time.

"There's a lot of stuff [in] the press that say Colin Powell was against [the war]," he said. "But I never saw even the slightest hint of that."

"The idea that he was lying or duped is nonsense," Rumsfeld added.

Rumsfeld said "it's possible" that decisions on troop levels in Iraq may have been the biggest mistake of the war. He maintained that the war overall was not a mistake.

"I think the world's a better place with Saddam Hussein gone and with the Taliban gone and the al Qaeda out of Afghanistan," he said.

Rumsfeld was also critical of Powell's successor, Condoleezza Rice, for her lack of experience in government.

"She'd never served in a senior administration position," he said. "She'd been an academic. And, you know, a lot of academics like to have meetings. And they like to bridge differences and get people all to be happy."

Rumsfeld feels no similar compunction to make people happy. He reportedly caused Rice to burst into tears at the prospect of meeting with him:

Miss Rice tried repeatedly to organise a meeting with the most senior figures in the government to discuss the tribunals, but Mr Rumsfeld twice refused to attend, sending his deputy Paul Wolfowitz instead.

Pulitzer prize winning author Barton Gellman writes: "He did not regard her as an equal and barely hid it. The opinions of her staff did not interest him."

On finding Mr Rumsfeld absent from a second meeting, CIA director George Tenet was so angry that he defied a direct order from Miss Rice to sit down and marched out of the meeting, declaring: "This is bullshit."

The book goes on: "Something happened to Rice's face, control melting away. Her eyes welled up and her next words caught in her throat. The men in the room did not know where to look.

'She started to cry,' said one of them. 'And she said - I can't remember the exact words because I was so shaken - something like: "We will talk about this again," and she turned and walked quickly out of the door.'"

So when Fareed Zakaria asks Rice about Rumsfeld's less-than-glowing reports of the job she did, Rice simply gets a tight smile and says that Donnie--who has carefully crafted an "aw shucks" persona in the media--is just a grumpy guy and doesn't know what he's talking about.

But the best part? She tells Fareed to wait for her book to find out what she really thinks about Rumsfeld. The circular firing squad is about to load up again.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (232)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (795)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Join with me now and breathe a collective sigh of relief that Jane Harman is no longer in Congress. Because a bigger war-mongering Neocon-in-Democratic-clothing I do not think you could find.

Not content with just three declared fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (and one stealth one in Pakistan) draining the country's resources, Jane Harman gets visibly excited at the thought of stopping all the evil Iran is supposedly doing in the Middle East. Gosh, it sounds like Harman is getting all her intel from Saudi and/or Israeli sources. because you know, they don't have any kind of agenda in dealing with Iran. That "playing" in Bahrain? Debunked. That "playing" in Lebanon? At the request of the Lebanese PM. Even the weapons with Iranian markings allegedly found in Gaza--how does that line up with all those American-made arms pointing at Palestinians? Funny how that goes unmentioned.

I'm sorry, but no American should be bemoaning the hegemony of any other country in the Middle East, unless we're just bound and determined to be the only purveyors of it. Note how quickly Harman glides into decrying Iran as the fount of all things bad in the Middle East to Yemen and conflating the country proper (no matter how unstable it is) with the American-born and officially Yemeni-convicted terrorist spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki, whom Harman has referred to as "Terrorist #1" (again ignoring the repeated acts of terrorism being committed in this country by all those "lone wolf" right wing nut jobs). The very fact that she holds up some magazine written by al Qaeda as proof of the threat because it featured an article on how to build a bomb in your kitchen, but ignores all that same information has been not only readily available on the internets (and hell, even in the library for us old-timers that still read books), but used by people like Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

But that Jane Harman, she loves her some military interventions in the Middle East...so much she's looking for more.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »