CNN's Zakaria Praises Obama's Middle East Speech on CNN; No Mention of His Face-to-Face Meetings with President
CNN's Fareed Zakaria appeared three times on Newsroom Thursday to
preview and afterward praise President Obama's speech on the Middle East - but
never revealed that he has recently had face-to-face meetings with the
president on foreign policy matters.
Last weekend a comment by CNN prime time host Eliot Spitzer revealed
that Zakaria was advising the president on foreign policy matters, but
Zakaria later dismissed that observation and said he simply had
off-the-record conversations with Obama on foreign issues. However, he
still did not disclose that information when he evaluated Obama's
foreign policy speech Thursday on CNN. Zakaria positively described Obama as "educator-in-chief" on the Middle
East worldview and graded the speech as "good" and a "comprehensive
speech." He thought Obama could have been tougher on Syria's regime in
calling for them to step down.
Zakaria's story of his meetings with Obama was picked up on by multiple
news outlets last weekend and became a topic of discussion on his
journalistic credibility. First, a New York Times article touted that
Obama had "sounded out" prominent journalists like Zakaria "regarding
their visits to the [Middle East]."
CNN's Eliot Spitzer referred
to the article Thursday May 12 on his show In the Arena, while
interviewing Zakaria, and bragged that his colleague was advising Obama
on foreign policy. Zakaria did not deny that he was advising the
president, and clarified that the meetings were face-to-face and on
matters of foreign policy.
After several internet outlets reported
that Zakaria was advising the president, Zakaria posted on his website
Saturday that those reports were "inaccurate" and that he simply had
some "off-the-record" conversations with the president, who had never
asked him for advice.
Wrote
NewsBusters' Brent Baker of lingering doubts about the matter: "Doubts
indeed when the host of a CNN show is discussing with the President the
very policies that journalist later assesses on his foreign
policy-oriented show."
A transcript of Zakaria's evaluation of the President's speech, which aired on May 19 at 1:00 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
HALA GORANI, CNN International anchor: What did you make of the speech by the president, Fareed, today? It was really a sweeping look at the region, though some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, were not mentioned.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN correspondent: Hala, exactly. It was his role as educator-in-chief that came out today. He provided a kind of worldview, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia, and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.
He touched on the places we don't like, the regimes we don't like, about having trouble dealing with people in power - Tehran, Damascus, he also talked about Bahrain and Yemen. But you're right, of course, he didn't talk about the 800 pound goarilla that is Saudi Arabia. But he also then went on to talk about ways to consolidate these revolutions. He talked about the Arab-Israeli peace process. He was tougher on Syria than he's been. He was explicit in his support for two states, Israel and Palestine on 1967 borders, plus mutually-agreeable land slots. So very comprehensive. I have a feeling, though, that while he will be well-received in the region, there is an urgency here, to questions about whether these revolutions are going to go awry or whether they're going to be consolidated. I mean, here in Egypt there is great concern that having done this extraordinary revolution, they are still living under a military dictatorship that arrests its people, engages in military trials, torture, tear gas - and so I think they will be looking for that follow-through, the actions that America's diplomats, ambassadors, and perhaps the Secretary of State do. It was a good speech, but I think many Egyptians think right now they need a little more force than just a speech.
WOLF BLITZER: And Fareed, it was interesting. It almost seemed like the Obama doctrine is like "let's deal with this on a case-by-case basis, country to country," and essentially putting the responsibility, the onus on the people there, saying that they had gotten done more in six months than the terrorists had gotten done in decades. Do you think that the people there, in the Arab world and the Middle East, that they wanted to hear more from this president in terms of concrete ideals and solutions to move their democracies or their revolutions forward?
(...)
WOLF BLITZER: Fareed, it's Wolf in Washington. I just want to get your reaction to what he said about President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. He was pretty tough. He said Assad can lead that transition to democracy, if you will, or get out of the way. I think there are very few observers who believe he will actually lead a transition to democracy. But the president stopped short of saying that Bashar al-Assad must do what Mubarak in Egypt did, or Khadafi in Libya is supposed to do, namely leave. What do you think of the way the president finessed the words on Syria?
ZAKARIA: Wolf, that is the one part of the speech that I was a little puzzled by, because I think that we are clearly moving in the direction of - and when I say "we," I mean U.S. foreign policy - of calling for regime change in Syria. I'm not sure why we're phasing it out over several weeks, because as you say there is almost no prospect that Assad will be part of a democratic transition. The Syrian regime is a minority regime, an Allawad regime rules over a majority that really do not want to be ruled by this tiny minority that they by the way regard mostly as heretics. And so this regime knows it has no place to go. It's not going to compromise, so in that case we are taking the position that there needs to be a democratic transition. The logical consequence for that is to ask for Assad's ouster, or at the very least to call on him to peacefully step down. And I understand concerns about stability, but we're going there anyway. And it struck me that the president could have gone. He went one shade further than he's gone, I think he could have gone a couple of shades more.
BLITZER: Was there anything else that you thought was thunderously missing besides his avoiding any direct reference to Saudi Arabia, stopping short of calling Bashar al-Assad to step down? Was there anything else you wanted to hear, Fareed?
ZAKARIA: No, I thought it was a comprehensive speech. I, by the way, understand why he didn't bring up Saudi Arabia. It is the most awkward case where our short-term interests are not compatible with our long-term values. He highlighted the fact that there would be such occasions, he didn't point out that this was the specific one. If there were instability in Saudi Arabia, you are looking at $250-a-barrel oil, and that would potentially plunge the entire Western world, perhaps the entire world, into another recession. So I think there are good reasons to be somewhat cautious about change in Saudi Arabia.
I think that he was also - he also gave a speech that I would be surprised if anyone in Israel would object to, because he was very clear that Israel's legitimate security interests have to be taken care of. He was very clear on the fact that Hamas could not be negotiated with as long as it refused to recognize Israel and call for its destruction. I think that there are many of those key issues that Israelis were worried that he would either ignore or half-state, he stated pretty fully. So I think that he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus-or-minus land slots. He also recognizes Israel's legitimate security needs.
- Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center.
