ZAKARIA & AMERICAN LEADERSHIP.
Learn to talk about other things.
A CNN article today by Zakaria makes one to cringe during this Holiday season, for crying out loud. He attacks American leadership or patterns or styles of leadership, past and present, in a way that only an Arab will do. He must be an Arab American, but nobody is holding that against him in any way.
Only that he forgets all about recent American leadership history, and he picks on a theme that he thinks will make him popular with his CNN benefactors or his bosses at another news publication establishment; but who really cares about that?
The problem he has is that, to him, in this whole world, only an Arab view point matters in every case, be it socialistic, economic or political. It seems like that is the sole perspective he has on life, and he can use that to write about any ongoing issue, any way he desires and get away with it.
That is not journalism; that is partiality, which can only portray how biased a writer is; and also, what Zakaria's agenda is, no one can really tell.
His piece, "Too soon to judge Obama" must not have come out at the wrong time or for any reason, except for him to claim that he has something important to write about, by comparing the leaderships of American presidents.
He states, "Many think that Obama just doesn't have what it takes to be the kind of leader we need - the kind we have had in the past. Many Democrats pine for someone like Bill Clinton who was just such a 'gifted political player' and a 'legendary leader.' "
He cannot be that stupid to forget that Americans are approaching an election year to choose a president, for him to make that kind of a statement.
Alright, let us compare leaderships. What notable political or economic achievements have Clinton or for that matter Carter accomplished? None; except for an economic surplus by Clinton that most people talk about; and Carter losing the diplomatic war with Iraq for the Ayatollah to come into power in that country.
Presidents G.W. and W. Bush must have credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and that is good.
Reagan accomplished very little, in terms of foreign policy, except telling Gorbachev "to tear down this wall"; meaning the Berlin divide, and that may have contributed to the fall of Communism, as some people may say.
Obama has caused the demise of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on mainland United States.
He has fought in a war, with America's NATO allies, to defeat a brutal despot, Gadhafi, without a single American casualty.
He has been able to end the war in Iraq, which his critics are saying is such a bad move; however, isn't it about time for the Iraqis to govern themselves as civilized people must do?
Thousands of Americans have died and/or injured to bring Democracy to Iraq; and if they will allow it to slip through their fingers, who is to blame? Obama? Many people doubted that.
Besides, that war and the operations in Afghanistan have been draining America's coffers for years, the effect has been felt in the country's bad economy; and that the billions of dollars spent there must be brought back to resuscitate the U.S. economy. He is in the process of doing that.
The only issues that one can write home about are the economy cum unemployment, border protection and immigration; and even there too, he is working diligently to correct the economy/unemployment, and with the help of the Democratic Congressional caucus, a comprehensive immigration legislation is being developed, respectively.
Therefore, when it comes to talking about leadership, Zakaria must have the obligation to look at the facts before he utters anything stupidly.
The way the Republicans are fussing over who will be their leader to face off with Obama in the 2012 presidential election, many are doubtful that they can come up with someone that the American people can trust and rely on for a strong leadership.
How about that for a good political lesson, Zakaria? (Notice that he is also foolish enough to always write in the plural).