{"id":9078,"date":"2011-02-01T05:13:46","date_gmt":"2011-02-01T13:13:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=9078"},"modified":"2011-02-02T10:47:13","modified_gmt":"2011-02-02T18:47:13","slug":"rachel-maddow-supports-aid-to-mubarak","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2011\/02\/01\/rachel-maddow-supports-aid-to-mubarak\/","title":{"rendered":"Rachel Maddow Supports Aid to Mubarak"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>So you thought it was only the wackos on the neocon right who support Mubarak? Wrong! I&#8217;m listening right now to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC&#8217;s resident ultra-liberal, attack Rand Paul for being &#8220;offshore&#8221; because he calls for ending the $1.5 billion in &#8220;aid&#8221; to the Egyptian military.\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00c2\u00a0&#8220;Offshore&#8221;?<\/p>\n<p>Well, uh, yes, because you see &#8220;politics stops at the water&#8217;s edge,&#8221; everyone in both parties supports the President&#8217;s non-policy regarding the Egyptian events, and only &#8220;offshore&#8221; (read: off-the-wall) types, like the &#8220;isolationist&#8221; (Rachel&#8217;s word) Rand Paul think otherwise.\u00c2\u00a0 Stupidly, she lumps in Paul with John &#8220;Invade the World&#8221; Bolton &#8212; who supports Mubarak (just like the Obama administration, which continues to fund Mubarak&#8217;s secret police thugs). She also noted that Paul wants to end aid to Israel &#8212; &#8220;Of course,&#8221; as she put it.\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Of course&#8221;? Really? Rand Paul&#8217;s bravery in sticking his neck out on this sensitive issue is to be commended &#8212; but not if you&#8217;re Rachel Maddow, who has never &#8212; <em>ever<\/em> &#8212; critcized Israel on her oh-so-&#8220;liberal&#8221; show.<\/p>\n<p>Back when she was just another Air America airhead, Maddow invited me to be on her program: I declined, just because I wasn&#8217;t in the mood for liberal bromides that day. I thought she was a hack\u00c2\u00a0then, and now that she&#8217;s famous she&#8217;s even more of a partisan hack than before.<\/p>\n<p>What I&#8217;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?\u00c2\u00a0Is it &#8220;stimulus&#8221; money? Does she just support any and all government spending as a matter of high principle? Or does she really think it&#8217;s a good idea for us to be subsidizing a regime so brutal that even the US State Department characterizes it as &#8220;repressive&#8221;?<\/p>\n<p>Rachel, Rachel,<em> Rachel<\/em> &#8212; you can&#8217;t be serious. The Egyptian people want us to stop supporting Mubarak: it&#8217;s that simple. If that&#8217;s &#8220;offshore,&#8221; then so be it.<\/p>\n<p>UPDATE:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Ed Show&#8217; follows the Maddow tirade on MSNBC, and there&#8217;s good old Ed &#8212; a protectionist China-basher with a slightly thuggish look &#8212; demanding to know why the US sends $1.5 billion a year to Mubarak. Maybe he should ask Rachel that question. Oh, and he&#8217;s pushing a poll &#8212; you text in your vote &#8212; asking people whether they think the US should cut the aid. I guess Rachel will be voting &#8220;yes.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>So you thought it was only the wackos on the neocon right who support Mubarak? Wrong! I&#8217;m listening right now to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC&#8217;s resident ultra-liberal, attack Rand Paul for being &#8220;offshore&#8221; because he calls for ending the $1.5 billion in &#8220;aid&#8221; to the Egyptian military.\u00c2\u00a0 \u00c2\u00a0&#8220;Offshore&#8221;? Well, uh, yes, because you see &#8220;politics stops [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-9078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9078"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9078\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9105,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9078\/revisions\/9105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9078"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=9078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}