Monday, June 07, 2010

What do Fareed Zakharia, Andrew Sullivan and Helen Thomas have in Common?

Think. Think very hard.

Here is the comment that got Helen Thomas in trouble:

Have you come up with an answer yet? Let me drop some more hints.

Let's look at Fareed Zakharia. During the Bush Administration, he wrote things like this:

"In the past two weeks President Bush has, for the first time, started describing America's adversaries as part of "a single movement," "a worldwide network," with a common ideology. He notes that these groups come from different traditions but concludes that what unites them--their hatred of free societies--is more important. This kind of rhetoric does have the benefit of making the adversary seem larger and more sinister, thereby drumming up domestic support for the administration's policies, but it comes at great cost,"

And here is what Fareed Zakharia wrote about Governor Palin:

"Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges."

Now let's visit Andrew Sullivan (and his silent partner, Conor Friedersdorf):

I don't think, if this is all true, that Bush therefore lied about WMDs. He was just guilty of professional negligence and criminal blindness on the most important decision a president can ever make. That goes for the conduct of the occupation as well, of course. But we had a chance to fire him in 2004; and we didn't.

And how can we forget Andrew Sullivan on Palin:

"It seems to me that if you are on record saying that your life is an open book, and you have a state-run web-page about your infant son, and your own children's travel is paid for by the state, and you presented your infant son at a convention televised across the entire world, and you sent out a press release outing your own daughter's current pregnancy, then it is not despicable, evil, vile or outrageous for the press to ask factual, answerable questions about Sarah Palin's experiences as a pregnant and non-pregnant mother and about her marriage and about her parenting of her children. Palin herself just said so, "

And here is Helen Thomas on President Bush:

"Bush also has been able to execute his power grab by playing the fear card -- and with hardly a peep from a cowed Congress. This tactic has worked most of the time. Now, fortunately, the administration is encountering some pushback from Capitol Hill, from those who reject the chipping away of our civil liberties and the tarnishing of our reputation in the world among those who once respected our leadership,"

And Helen Thomas on Palin:

"In addition to her lack of experience, Palin -- governor of Alaska for two years -- carries a lot of unexpected baggage: Bristol, her 17-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter, plus a gubernatorial ethics problem for ordering a public safety commissioner to sack her ex-brother-in-law who had been involved in a divorce battle with her sister. Palin also has some explaining to do about her good-government image because she has simultaneously deplored special interest congressional funding called ``earmarks’’ while hiring lobbyists to seek millions in federal funds for her town in Alaska,"

Are you following the clues? Feel ready for 221B Baker Street yet? No? Keep following the breadcrumbs.

Here is the biggest clue of all, study it -- This is Fareed Zakaria talking to the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations on CNN, August 16, 2009:

ZAKARIA: Your foreign minister, on the other hand, has at various points -- Avigdor Lieberman -- said that he thinks that they should move there, or some large number of them should, and has in some cases seemed to suggest that he favored the ethnic cleansing of parts of Israel, to move certain Palestinians into the -- certain Arabs, Israeli Arabs into the Palestinian territories.
OREN: He has never spoken of ethnic cleansing, to the best of my knowledge. He has never spoken of...
ZAKARIA: He said moving them...
OREN: ... moving them against their will. He's talked about border adjustments.And we all understand that, if there ever is to be a treaty ending this conflict, there's going to have to be an exchange of territories, that some territories are going to find themselves under Palestinian sovereignty, some points under Israeli sovereignty.There have been realities created on the ground, certainly over the 42 years since the 1967 War.

Studying the clues? Now let's see what Andrew Sullivan has to say about the same Country:

I thought ambassador [Oren] were supposed to smoothe over rifts, not inflame them. And I thought they were supposed to speak to the broadest number of citizens in the countries to which they have been appointed, not provide inflammatory rants to the already-persuaded. But this Michael Oren piece in TNR abandons any pretense of diplomatic balance. The premise of Oren's piece is that Israel faces a new Nazism represented by Ahmadinejad and Holocaust deniers but, to an even greater extent, by the South African liberal, Richard Goldstone, and the United Nations. Oren seems to be arguing that Gaza was a war of survival for the Jewish state and that Israel had no choice but to launch a war that killed, by one conservative Israeli count, 320 children, destroyed 4,000 homes, and up to 80 government buildings. Even if one is sympathetic to the horrific barrage of Hamas rockets that Israeli citizens endured (and what decent human being wouldn't be?) - every single rocket being a war crime - it helps no one to use language this extreme or to distort history in this manner.

Have you put it together yet?

Because Sullivan, Zakharia, and Thomas are Liberals who attacked President Bush and Governor Palin, (and Sullivan and Zakharia went to Ivies so they must be smart! /sarc) they were also free to attack Jews and the State of Israel.

Conor Friedersdorf is supposedly half-Jewish and he could have stood up to Sullivan, but he doesn't care.

Fareed Zakharia edits the International Newsweek and has a show on CNN on Sunday morning, who will stand up against him?

Helen Thomas was kicked out because she was detrimental to a Democratic Administration. It shouldn't take 40 years to rid the media of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish haters because they sympathize with Progressives in the United States.

My question: What is to be done against Israeli haters Andrew Sullivan and Fareed Zakharia?

Bookmark and Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...