Category: News

So you thought it was only the wackos on the neocon right who support Mubarak? Wrong! I’m listening right now to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s resident ultra-liberal, attack Rand Paul for being “offshore” because he calls for ending the $1.5 billion in “aid” to the Egyptian military. 

 “Offshore”?

Well, uh, yes, because you see “politics stops at the water’s edge,” everyone in both parties supports the President’s non-policy regarding the Egyptian events, and only “offshore” (read: off-the-wall) types, like the “isolationist” (Rachel’s word) Rand Paul think otherwise.  Stupidly, she lumps in Paul with John “Invade the World” Bolton — who supports Mubarak (just like the Obama administration, which continues to fund Mubarak’s secret police thugs). She also noted that Paul wants to end aid to Israel — “Of course,” as she put it. 

“Of course”? Really? Rand Paul’s bravery in sticking his neck out on this sensitive issue is to be commended — but not if you’re Rachel Maddow, who has never — ever — critcized Israel on her oh-so-“liberal” show.

Back when she was just another Air America airhead, Maddow invited me to be on her program: I declined, just because I wasn’t in the mood for liberal bromides that day. I thought she was a hack then, and now that she’s famous she’s even more of a partisan hack than before.

What I’d like to know is this, though: why does Maddow think funding the Egyptian torture machine, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, is good for America? How does it serve our legitimate interests? Is it “stimulus” money? Does she just support any and all government spending as a matter of high principle? Or does she really think it’s a good idea for us to be subsidizing a regime so brutal that even the US State Department characterizes it as “repressive”?

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel — you can’t be serious. The Egyptian people want us to stop supporting Mubarak: it’s that simple. If that’s “offshore,” then so be it.

UPDATE:

“The Ed Show’ follows the Maddow tirade on MSNBC, and there’s good old Ed — a protectionist China-basher with a slightly thuggish look — demanding to know why the US sends $1.5 billion a year to Mubarak. Maybe he should ask Rachel that question. Oh, and he’s pushing a poll — you text in your vote — asking people whether they think the US should cut the aid. I guess Rachel will be voting “yes.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 1st, 2011:

The Wall Street Journal: Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot writes, “[I]t does scant justice to the complexity of the situation to claim that Mr. Mubarak was a superb ally, or to imagine that we can manage an easy transition to a post-Mubarak regime.” Boot uses a series of quotes catalogued by the controversial Middle East Media Research Institute showing “rabid anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism that polluted Egypt’s state-controlled news media.” Boot doesn’t find Mohammed ElBaredei to be an attractive alternative to Mubarak because “[h]e called the Gaza Strip ‘the world’s largest prison’ and declared that it was imperative to ‘open the borders, end the blockade.’ Boot adds, “Mr. ElBaradei also spoke glowingly of Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has assailed Israel in harsh terms and voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran.”

The Wall Street Journal: Ronen Bergman, an intelligence analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli daily, draws lessons from the fall of the Shah in Iran that apply to the current situation in Egypt, and recommends that the U.S. stand by Mubarak or risk repeating the mistakes that led to “the establishment of an Islamic regime in Tehran that has been no friend to the U.S.” Bergman concludes, “Past experience suggests that if Mr. Mubarak’s regime is toppled, not only will American interests suffer, but the cause of freedom in Egypt could be set back dramatically. And the U.S. will have contributed to a Middle East that is less stable and more dangerous than it is today.”

AOL News: The American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin opines that the Obama administration must be careful to avoid an “Iran-like tragedy in Egypt” but Mubarak might not be the lynchpin to maintaining U.S. interests in Egypt. “The true value of Egypt was its peace treaty with Israel, an event that predated Mubarak’s rise,” writes Rubin. “Many analysts see the shadow of Iran’s Islamic revolution in the Egyptian chaos. One parallel is certain: Should Mubarak flee, it will be the end of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end,” he warns. Rubin concludes, “If the White House is to avoid an Iran-like tragedy, it must stay one step ahead of the Brotherhood, refuse to be a populist foil and guarantee the September elections, and bestow legitimacy only upon those groups that eschew violence and abide by the Egyptian constitution.”

The Egyptian army has reportedly issued a statement declaring they will not fire on the hundreds of thousands of protesters occupying Tahrir Square.

This occurs as the protesters, led by the April 6 movement, issue a call for a general strike and a “million man march” to finally topple the US-backed regime.

I think we can say, with near certainty, that Mubarak is finished.

Here is a more comprehensive report on the statement, which reads in part:

“The presence of the army in the streets is for your sake and to ensure your safety and wellbeing. The armed forces will not resort to use of force against our great people.

“Your armed forces, who are aware of the legitimacy of your demands and are keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirms that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for January 31st, 2011:

Council on Foreign Relations: Elliott Abrams blogs on the jailed American hikers and USAID contractor in Iran and concludes that it is time for the Obama administration to ratchet up demands for their release. He asks rhetorically, “I hope we have conveyed to the regime that if a hair on their heads is injured, there will be hell to pay—immediately. Should we go further right now, and tell the ayatollahs to let them go by a date certain or suffer some sanction? Bluffing would be counterproductive, so if we make that statement we must follow through with a blow to some Iranian asset.” Abrams acknowledges that making demands for the prisoners’ release might backfire, but reminds his readers that American prestige is on the line. “[W]e are paying a price by acting as if we were Belgium or Costa Rica, unable to do more than wring our hands and plead. We are reducing respect for the United States in a capital where the level of respect matters, Tehran,” he writes. “We are allowing two fellow citizens to be used as human sacrifices by an odious regime that puts no value on human life, and pays little price for doing so.”

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, writing on her Right Turn blog, attacks the Obama administration’s unwillingness to publicly denounce Hosni Mubarak or immediately cut aid to Egypt. She ends her post with a brief swipe at the administration’s hesitancy to take a harder line with Iran, writing, “[L]et’s not forget the most egregious mistake: failing to recognize the nature of the Iranian regime and confront the aggression of its proxies in the region.” She concludes, “Is it any wonder the Obama team is now struggling to keep up with events in Egypt?”

Tablet Magazine: The Hudson Institute’s Lee Smith examines the U.S.’s relationship to Egyptian protestors and the test of “George W. Bush’s Freedom Agenda.” He writes, “If Egypt moves out of the American fold, it might well align itself with Iran,” or worse yet, “…it would challenge the Iranians, in the way regional competition has worked since 1948—by seeing who can pose the greatest threat to Israel.” Smith takes issue with the media’s portrayal of Mohamed ElBaredei as a leader of the democracy movement. Attacking his record at the IAEA, Smith writes, “[T]his so-called reformer distorted his inspectors’ reports on Iran and effectively paved the way for the Islamic Republic’s march toward a nuclear bomb.” Smith concludes that liberal democracy in Egypt will fail because young Arabs have an irrational hatred of Israel and because “…the United States will not come to the aid of its liberal allies, or strengthen the moderate Muslims against the extremists… the Freedom Agenda is not going to work, at least not right now.” He continues, “The underlying reason then is Arab political culture, where real democrats and genuine liberals do not stand a chance against the men with guns.”

The Wall Street Journal: Former George W. Bush National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley writes about the possible outcomes of pro-democracy protests in Egypt. In one scenario, Mubarak rides out the crisis and calls for elections later in the year. Hadley compares this option to the government following Pakistani elections in 2008. “[I]t is a democratic government, and by its coming to power we avoided the kind of Islamist regime that followed the fall of the Shah of Iran and that has provoked three decades of serious confrontation with the U.S. and totalitarian oppression of the Iranian people,” writes Hadley, implying a surprisingly good human rights situation under the Shah’s rule.