President Obama withdrew support from Hosni Mubarak when the protests started in Egypt. Obama took the side of the democratic protesters, calling for Mubarak's removal, and now Egypt is being ruled by a secret military government allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the New York Times:
CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.
It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.
With the Brotherhood taking the lead, there is evidence emerging that Egypt will beome an Islamist state:
When the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, addressed the crowd in Tahrir Square this month, Mohamed el-Beltagi, a prominent Brotherhood member, stood by his side. A Brotherhood member was also appointed to the committee that drafted amendments to the Constitution.
But the most obvious and consequential example was the recent referendum on the amendments, in the nation’s first post-Mubarak balloting. The amendments essentially call for speeding up the election process so that parliamentary contests can be held before September, followed soon after by a presidential race. That expedited calendar is seen as giving an advantage to the Brotherhood and to the remnants of Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, which have established national networks. The next Parliament will oversee drafting a new constitution.
Before the vote, Essam el-Erian, a Brotherhood leader and spokesman, appeared on a popular television show, “The Reality,” arguing for the government’s position in favor of the proposal. With a record turnout, the vote was hailed as a success. But the “yes” campaign was based largely on a religious appeal: voters were warned that if they did not approve the amendments, Egypt would become a secular state.
“The problem is that our country will be without a religion,” read a flier distributed in Cairo by a group calling itself the Egyptian Revolution Society. “This means that the call to the prayer will not be heard anymore like in the case of Switzerland, women will be banned from wearing the hijab like in the case of France,” it said, referring to the Muslim head scarf. “And there will be laws that allow men to get married to men and women to get married to women like in the case of America.”
A banner hung by the Muslim Brotherhood in a square in Alexandria instructed voters that it was their “religious duty” to vote “yes” on the amendments.
In the end, 77.2 percent of those who voted said yes.
That's all we need, another Iran. Because this information comes from the New York Times, we have the usual credence given to the incredible. This time, the Times takes at face value statements by the Muslim Brotherhood indicating that they are NOT interested in creating an Islamic state. Here we go:
This is not to say that the Brotherhood is intent on establishing an Islamic state. From the first days of the protests, Brotherhood leaders proclaimed their dedication to religious tolerance and a democratic and pluralist form of government. They said they would not offer a candidate for president, that they would contest only a bit more than a third of the total seats in Parliament, and that Coptic Christians and women would be welcomed into the political party affiliated with the movement.
None of that has changed, Mr. Erian, the spokesman, said in an interview. “We are keen to spread our ideas and our values,” he said. “We are not keen for power.”
He would not comment on whether the Brotherhood had an arrangement with the military, but he said the will of the people to shift toward Islam spoke for itself and was a sign of Egypt’s emerging democratic values. “Don’t trust the intellectuals, liberals and secularists,” Mr. Erian said. “They are a minor group crying all the time. If they don’t work hard, they have no future.”
Sure, New York Times. Whatever. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic transnational movement whose slogan is "Islam is the solution", is allegedly NOT interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state", is allegedly NOT interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:
In the group's belief, the Quran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.
These are the people the New York Times believes when they say they aren't interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. There really is a sucker born every minute.
Btw, guess what the Egyptian military/Muslim Brotherhood government is banning ? They are banning PROTESTS. There's a clear indicator these guys are interested in democracy. Or not.
There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins.
And now we are supporting Libyan rebels in their war with Qaddafi. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but we don't know what the Libyan rebels ultimately want either. There are reports that some of them are jihadists who were fighting against the United States in Iraq.
What's becoming crystal clear is, we have no idea what we're doing in the Middle East. Our leaders don't even seem to understand what's going on there, what we're getting into, or what the eventual outcome will be. Obama has finally verbalized an Obama military doctrine with last night's speech, and that doctrine seems to be that the United States will still be the policeman of the world (when we feel like it), and we'll still push against dictators for regime change (when we feel like it). Obama's policy officially became Bush Lite last night. It's kind of surreal to watch liberal Democrats turn into neocons right in front of our eyes. Tell me if Obama's speech last night doesn't fit this definition of neoconservatism to a tee:
Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it defines national interests to include ideological interests e.g. the defense of other nations with similar ideologies for geopolitical purposes, proposing to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.
Now here's one line of many such lines from Obama's speech:
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom
Ding, ding, ding. Neoconservatism is exactly what Obama is pushing. Hillary too. Kerry too. Makes me wonder what the Democrat leadership was bitching about for all those years...other than the fact they were out of power.
About This Blog