Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 134

Thread: Egypt's ElBaradei: Liberals 'decimated' in vote

  1. #61
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Dealing with Islamists is old hat for Washington

    Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood | NY Review of Books Blog | Feb 05 2011

    As US-backed strongmen around North Africa and the Middle East are being toppled or shaken by popular protests, Washington is grappling with a crucial foreign-policy issue: how to deal with the powerful but opaque Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has taken an increasingly forceful part in the protests, issuing a statement Thursday calling for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. And though it is far from clear what role the Brotherhood would have should Mubarak step down, the Egyptian president has been claiming it will take over. In any case, the movement is likely to be a major player in any transitional government.

    Journalists and pundits are already weighing in with advice on the strengths and dangers of this 83-year-old Islamist movement, whose various national branches are the most potent opposition force in virtually all of these countries. Some wonder how the Brotherhood will treat Israel, or if it really has renounced violence. Most—including the Obama administration —seem to think that it is a movement the West can do business with, even if the White House denies formal contacts.

    If this discussion evokes a sense of déjà vu, this is because over the past sixty years we have had it many times before, with almost identical outcomes. Since the 1950s, the United States has secretly struck up alliances with the Brotherhood or its offshoots on issues as diverse as fighting communism and calming tensions among European Muslims. And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood.

    How can Americans be unaware of this history? Credit a mixture of wishful thinking and a national obsession with secrecy, which has shrouded the US government’s extensive dealings with the Brotherhood.

    Consider President Eisenhower. In 1953, the year before the Brotherhood was outlawed by Nasser, a covert US propaganda program headed by the US Information Agency brought over three dozen Islamic scholars and civic leaders mostly from Muslim countries for what officially was an academic conference at Princeton University. The real reason behind the meeting was an effort to impress the visitors with America’s spiritual and moral strength, since it was thought that they could influence Muslims’ popular opinion better than their ossified rulers. The ultimate goal was to promote an anti-Communist agenda in these newly independent countries, many of which had Muslim majorities.

    One of the leaders, according to Eisenhower’s appointment book, was “The Honorable Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brothers.”* The person in question (in more standard romanization, Said Ramadan), was the son-in-law of the Brotherhood’s founder and at the time widely described as the group’s “foreign minister.” (He was also the father of the controversial Swiss scholar of Islam, Tariq Ramadan.)

    Eisenhower officials knew what they were doing. In the battle against communism, they figured that religion was a force that US could make use of—the Soviet Union was atheist, while the United States supported religious freedom. Central Intelligence Agency analyses of Said Ramadan were quite blunt, calling him a “Phalangist” and a “fascist interested in the grouping of individuals for power.” But the White House went ahead and invited him anyway.


    By the end of the decade, the CIA was overtly backing Ramadan. While it’s too simple to call him a US agent, in the 1950s and 1960s the United States supported him as he took over a mosque in Munich, kicking out local Muslims to build what would become one of the Brotherhood’s most important centers—a refuge for the beleaguered group during its decades in the wilderness. In the end, the US didn’t reap much for its efforts, as Ramadan was more interested in spreading his Islamist agenda than fighting communism. In later years, he supported the Iranian revolution and likely aided the flight of a pro-Teheran activist who murdered one of the Shah’s diplomats in Washington.

    Cooperation ebbed and flowed. During the Vietnam War, US attention was focused elsewhere but with the start of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, interest in cultivating Islamists picked up again. That period of backing the mujahedeen— some of whom morphed into al-Qaeda—is well-known, but Washington continued to flirt with Islamists, and especially the Brotherhood.

    In the years after the September 11 attacks, the United States initially went after the Brotherhood, declaring many of its key members to be backers of terrorism. But by Bush’s second term, the US was losing two wars in the Muslim world and facing hostile Muslim minorities in Germany, France, and other European countries, where the Brotherhood had established an influential presence. The US quietly changed its position.

    The Bush administration devised a strategy to establish close relations with Muslim groups in Europe that were ideologically close to the Brotherhood, figuring that it could be an interlocutor in dealing with more radical groups, such as the home-grown extremists in Paris, London and Hamburg.
    And, as in the 1950s, government officials wanted to project an image to the Muslim world that Washington was close to western-based Islamists. So starting in 2005, the State Department launched an effort to woo the Brotherhood. In 2006, for example, it organized a conference in Brussels between these European Muslim Brothers and American Muslims, such as the Islamic Society of North America, who are considered close to the Brotherhood. All of this was backed by CIA analyses, with one from 2006 saying the Brotherhood featured “impressive internal dynamism, organization, and media savvy.” Despite the concerns of western allies that supporting the Brotherhood in Europe was too risky, the CIA pushed for cooperation. As for the Obama administration, it carried over some of the people on the Bush team who had helped devise this strategy.

    Why the enduring interest in the Brotherhood? Since its founding in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher and imam Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood has managed to voice the aspirations of the Muslim world’s downtrodden and often confused middle class. It explained their backwardness in an interesting mixture of fundamentalism and fascism (or reactionary politics and xenophobia): today’s Muslims aren’t good enough Muslims and must return to the true spirit of the Koran. Foreigners, especially Jews, are part of a vast conspiracy to oppress Muslims. This message was—and still is—delivered through a modern, political party-like structure, that includes women’s groups, youth clubs, publications and electronic media, and, at times, paramilitary wings. It has also given birth to many of the more violent strains of radical Islamism, from Hamas to al-Qaeda, although many of such groups now find the Brotherhood too conventional. Little wonder that the Brotherhood, for all its troubling aspects, is interesting to western policy makers eager to gain influence in this strategic part of the world.

    But the Brotherhood has been a tricky partner. In countries where it aspires to join the political mainstream, it renounces the use of violence locally. Hence the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says it no longer seeks to overthrow the regime violently—although its members there think nothing of calling for Israel’s destruction. In Egypt, the Brotherhood also says it wants religious courts to enforce shariah, but at times has also said that secular courts could have final say. This isn’t to suggest that its moderation is just for show, but it’s fair to say that the Brotherhood has only partially embraced the values of democracy and pluralism.

    Youssef Qaradawi

    The group’s most powerful cleric, the Qatar-based Youssef Qaradawi, epitomizes this bifurcated worldview. He says women should be allowed to work and that in some countries, Muslims may hold mortgages (which are based on interest, a taboo for fundamentalists). But Qaradawi advocates the stoning of homosexuals and the murder of Israeli children—because they will grow up and could serve as soldiers.

    Qaradawi is hardly an outlier. In past years, he has often been mentioned as a candidate to be the Egyptian branch’s top leader. He is very likely the most influential cleric in the Muslim world—on Friday, for example, thousands of Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square listened to a broadcast of his sermon. He has also declared those demonstrators who have died defying the government to be martyrs.

    That is an indication of the Brotherhood’s growing influence in the wave of protests around the region. In Egypt, the Brotherhood, after a slow start, has become a key player in the anti-government coalition; on Thursday, the new vice president, Omar Suleiman, invited the Brotherhood for talks. In Jordan, where the group is legal, King Abdullah met with the Brotherhood for the first time in a decade. And in Tunis, the Islamist opposition leader Rachid Ghanouchi, who has been a pillar of the Brotherhood’s European network, recently returned home from his London exile.

    All of this points to the biggest difference between then and now. Half a century ago, the West chose to make use of the Brotherhood for short-term tactical gain, later backing many of the authoritarian governments that were also trying to wipe out the group. Now, with those governments tottering, the West has little choice; after decades of oppression, it is the Brotherhood, with its mixture of age-old fundamentalism and modern political methods, that is left standing.

    * The appointment book and details of Ramadan’s visit are in the Eisenhower presidential archives in Abilene, Kansas. See my book A Mosque in Munich, pp. 116-119, for details of the visit. On the use of the Brotherhood post-9/11, see pp 222-228.

    February 5, 2011, 10:15 a.m.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Jan 12, at 18:10.

  2. #62
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    What about the argument that career people are more invested in their job over temps.
    Nope our diplomatic corps has been a 5th column for decades. Should have dealt with them decades ago.

    Note that this is just the strict Islamist view, might not have been clear in my comment.
    Doesn't apply if one doesn't believe their leaders are proper Muslims.

    Might not have agreed with the liberals but were unanimous that their leader should go and he did. That's something new in that part of the world. Usually the protesters get mowed down with whatever and it gets silenced & forgotten.
    The MB took down Mubarak, the liberals in a few years will rue the day - just like liberals in Iran did.

    How about turning it on its head. The administration uses the media as an instrument of its foreign policy. Media needs the adminstration more than the other way around.
    The media mentioned skinny jeans so much you would swear the writers were queer - they essentially lied (as they do constantly) about the state of affairs. They lied about Vietnam, about Egypt, Libya, Iraq and the list goes on and on. On the plus side soon enough they will be full of stories about how these regimes abuse women worse then the last group of thugs.

    You are stating the army will move aside and let the civvies rule. Army has stated that they will do just that once the elections are over. We will see.
    Much of the indication is these guys aren't steely eyes killers but pot bellied crooks out to protect their skim. Add in the fact their military aid comes from the USA and our media will shit on them if they start machine gunning... dumb, corrupt, and shackled...
    Last edited by troung; 24 Jan 12, at 02:09.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  3. #63
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Nope our diplomatic corps has been a 5th column for decades. Should have dealt with them decades ago.
    Can you elaborate so we get a better idea of what you are saying.

    So far let me tell how it sounds like to me.

    Its ok to be critical of your govt
    Its ok to disagree with the present adminstrations policy on idealogical grounds. You've not done that though you've outright called what they did wrong.

    Earlier i thought you said they were incompetent which seemed a bit much. Still they make policy and we all have to live with it.

    Now you are borderline charging them with treason. Very radical.

    Without a better understanding of where you're coming from its difficult to know what to make of your comments.

    How to distinguish your pov from a run of the mill opposer to the Iraq war say ?

    You must have opposed Iraq because following your train of thought the same could be said about who succeeded Saddam ie an adminstration that would not necessarily see eye to eye with your interests.

    Libya was a sideshow in comparison to Iraq. This game began with Iraq. Technically it began with Afghanistan but that was not a war of choice.

    Only talking about post cold war developments here or did you also disagree with your adminstrations policy when it was countering communism by toppling regimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Doesn't apply if one doesn't believe their leaders are proper Muslims.
    hah, thats the Islamists excuse. Let see how far they can go with that line.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    The MB took down Mubarak, the liberals in a few years will rue the day - just like liberals in Iran did.
    Iran has oil & gas, serious amounts of it. What has Egypt got. Just people & the Suez.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    The media mentioned skinny jeans so much you would swear the writers were queer - they essentially lied (as they do constantly) about the state of affairs. They lied about Vietnam, about Egypt, Libya, Iraq and the list goes on and on. On the plus side soon enough they will be full of stories about how these regimes abuse women worse then the last group of thugs.
    Was watching the Doha debates last weekend on the BBC and it was hosted in Istanbul this time. The motion put to vote was that the Arabs deserved better than the Turkish model and the motion won. Turkey apparently has over a 100 journalists banged up.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Much of the indication is these guys aren't steely eyes killers but pot bellied crooks out to protect their skim. Add in the fact their military aid comes from the USA and our media will shit on them if they start machine gunning... dumb, corrupt, and shackled...
    As opposed to ignoring it in the past. Something is different this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    LOL HRW is a joke. It will be funny to watch them duck away from their MB support once they are fully in the drivers seat.
    Bruce Riedel said the same over a year back.

    Don't Fear Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood | Brookings | Jan 28 2011

  4. #64
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    hah, thats the Islamists excuse. Let see how far they can go with that line.
    Your comment about how good Muslims are supposed to be quiet was idiotic - no two ways about it. Only the steely eyed killers with AKs and suicide vests really are conformable arguing religion - non-Muslims just end up making fools of themselves.

    Iran has oil & gas, serious amounts of it. What has Egypt got. Just people & the Suez.
    And the liberals who came out on the street are going to end up in prisons or in the west with egg on their face once the MB locks in power.

    Now you are borderline charging them with treason. Very radical.
    Yeap should have purged them during the Cold War - not too late now to fire the entire diplomatic corps. We have a silly policy in East Asia with dead weight "allies", watched Islamists replace regional allies in the Middle East, throw feces at Iran but give Pakistan F-16s to house the Taliban and kill Americans, won't move on corruption in Afghanistan because "without" an effete douche who would hang from a lamp post the moment we leave we think we couldn't hang there and we just put terrorists in charge of Libya. The people who run our foreign policy fall into two groups - stupid or out an out traitors. Surprisingly Donald Trump was right about something - our diplomats never seem to win anything for us.

    Was watching the Doha debates last weekend on the BBC and it was hosted in Istanbul this time. The motion put to vote was that the Arabs deserved better than the Turkish model and the motion won. Turkey apparently has over a 100 journalists banged up.
    Umm yeah and not a single damn was given that day anywhere...

    As opposed to ignoring it in the past. Something is different this time.
    Yeah idiots in the west who accidentally cheered the Islamists on thinking it would lead to twittering fools setting up douchbagistan.

    Bruce Riedel said the same over a year back.
    A dumbass. HRW gets to support the MB and hope no one remembers when they criticize them in a few years.
    Last edited by troung; 25 Jan 12, at 03:26.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  5. #65
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Your comment about how good Muslims are supposed to be quiet was idiotic - no two ways about it. Only the steely eyed killers with AKs and suicide vests really are conformable arguing religion - non-Muslims just end up making fools of themselves.
    Its not my comment. The source is the author of the carnegie report. Look it up on the previous page.

    Clearly shows the difference between what is said and actually done

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    And the liberals who came out on the street are going to end up in prisons or in the west with egg on their face once the MB locks in power.
    And then what ?

    A replay of what used to go on during the military regimes except this time its not the islamist behind bars. On balance no effective difference between the two regimes. Is that what you are getting at. Economy still in shambles but everybody happy because now there is a real muslim in charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Yeap should have purged them during the Cold War - not too late now to fire the entire diplomatic corps.
    1) We have a silly policy in East Asia with dead weight "allies",
    2) watched Islamists replace regional allies in the Middle East,
    3) throw feces at Iran but give Pakistan F-16s to house the Taliban and kill Americans,
    4) won't move on corruption in Afghanistan because "without" an effete douche who would hang from a lamp post the moment we leave we think we couldn't hang there and
    5) we just put terrorists in charge of Libya.

    The people who run our foreign policy fall into two groups - stupid or out an out traitors. Surprisingly Donald Trump was right about something - our diplomats never seem to win anything for us.
    Anyone else besides Donald Trump that shares these views. The problem is not enough people believe this or have yet or things would have changed. You've not had a serious foreign policy debacle which would catalyse the change you want. I'd have thought OBL would have been that point but guess not. So if the system ain't broke why fix it.

    1) What should the ideal US policy in East Asia be ? They would accuse you of ignoring them for the last five years and only recently addressing it.

    2) No choice or thats what the NY Book Review blog post tells me.

    3) This one was slowly working its way in Congress, loads of rhetoric but no tangible results to show for. For all intents & purposes the relationship is stalled but there is no rollback and there won't be any unless more incidents occur. And thats unlikely given how fluid things currently are in Pakistan.

    Otherwise your Iran policy seems about right. Now there's a surprise. Your media hypes it up like a conflict was imminent yesterday but your adminstration does not comply

    4) I would be surprised if you exited Afghanistan without any bases left behind.

    5) Jury is still out on that one by which i mean the intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    A dumbass. HRW gets to support the MB and hope no one remembers when they criticize them in a few years.
    His name gets mentioned a lot, i've disageed with his hype about Pakistani nukes falling into terrorist hands. And he goes and writes a book about it.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Jan 12, at 19:55.

  6. #66
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    How about the Polish model ?

    Zakaria: Post-Communist lessons for the new Middle East | GPS Blog | Jan 22 2012

    As Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya transition from dictatorship to democracy, you'd think they'd look to America as a model for their new governments. But they don't. America is still too controversial in the Arab world.

    Instead, many of the countries transformed by the Arab Spring are looking in a surprising place for inspiration.

    Where is this new city on a hill?

    Take a look at the man landing at the airport in Tunis, Tunisia: It's Lech Walesa. He's the man whose actions 30 years ago in the Gdansk shipyard in Poland helped cause Communism to crumble across Eastern Europe. Walesa was in Tunisia to pass on the lessons he had learned.

    In fact, Poland is a good model for these countries. It's a country that started out with many problems - political and economic - but gradually overcame them. Today's Arab revolutionaries want to see how they did it. They are studying the Eastern European experience, and particularly the Polish path.

    Poland is cooperating in various ways. It has started hosting conferences to share its knowledge. In fact, it uses a U.S.-made computer game to train Arab and East European civil servants. It's called "SENSE", or the Strategic Economic Needs and Security Exercise. SENSE simulates a virtual country emerging from authoritarian rule. It trains participants to make democratic decisions and allocate resources. Years after training on it, Warsaw is now passing on its own experience to the Arab world.

    Poland's political and economic success have given it a sense of confidence and a new profile on the international stage. It's a member of NATO. In fact, it now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Beyond Europe, Poland has also been one of Washington's most loyal allies: Poland was among the largest contributors of troops to the War in Iraq, and it still has troops in Afghanistan.

    But perhaps the biggest reason for poverty-stricken nations like Egypt to pay close attention to Poland is that it is a very rare breed in today's world, especially in Europe. Poland has a strong economy - the sixth biggest in the European Union now and the only European Union country to avoid a recession altogether. None of its banks needed to be rescued.

    Its economy grew 4% last year, and is on track to grow 3% in 2012. Why, you'll ask. How did it survive the turmoil in the Euro Zone? One answer is that it has strong domestic demand and has been pouring money into infrastructure projects.

    But the real - and fortuitous - reason is that Poland has yet to be allowed in to the Euro Zone - it continues to use zlotys instead of the euro. So unlike Greece or Italy, it was able to devalue its currency to stay competitive.

    The irony is Warsaw continues to see its destiny as being tied to the common currency. More than half its exports go to the EU - a majority of it to Germany, its main trading partner. Poles reason that being part of the same currency would encourage foreign direct investment in Poland. And it's not just about economics. After yearning for decades to be part of Europe, its leaders now feel a resurgent Poland could be a full-fledged member of the European community.

    But perhaps Poland should look at England, Sweden, and Switzerland - all European countries, all with strong economies - but with their own currencies. That might be the model to emulate. In any event, no Arab country is likely to give up its currency anytime soon - no matter what Poland will do.

  7. #67
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Instead, many of the countries transformed by the Arab Spring are looking in a surprising place for inspiration.
    What feel good BS - the Islamists are not looking at Poland nor would they. Journalists should have a finger broken everytime they write a stupid article like that. At least Fareed wouldn't be able to type.

    A replay of what used to go on during the military regimes except this time its not the islamist behind bars. On balance no effective difference between the two regimes. Is that what you are getting at. Economy still in shambles but everybody happy because now there is a real muslim in charge.
    Yeap just like Iran. The twitterers will be looking quite stupid once the MB secures power.

    The problem is not enough people believe this or have yet or things would have changed.
    Not enough people pay attention so these idiots fail in peace.

    2) No choice or thats what the NY Book Review blog post tells me.
    ....

    4) I would be surprised if you exited Afghanistan without any bases left behind.
    To protect Karzai from Pakistan's vassals - well thought out policy. Thank God we have career diplomats and foreign policy experts running our foreign policy....
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  8. #68
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    What feel good BS - the Islamists are not looking at Poland nor would they. Journalists should have a finger broken everytime they write a stupid article like that. At least Fareed wouldn't be able to type.
    As opposed to those that write chicken little nonsense about global warming, peak oil, rise of the islamists, the collapse of the $, US, euro, EC, the west, Pakistan, China, etc

    Advocates on both sides have to exaggerate their positions for effect. Trick is to be able to spot & account for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Yeap just like Iran. The twitterers will be looking quite stupid once the MB secures power.
    The future in other words. No doubt about whats happened so far but the future is an open question.

    Its unclear whether the election success of the Islamists translates into electorial support for an islamist agenda. Or did they get voted in because they were seen as the cleanest party out there.

    EIther way, when their term is up the next elections decide whether they stay or go.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Not enough people pay attention so these idiots fail in peace.
    Or the problem isn't as big that it only gets mentioned at election time.
    Or that the problem is so big that the only time it can be mentioned is during election time.

    Either way its very contentious. You're implicating a lot of people here. Nexus between vested interests over the people, that of big money, of the media, collusion with think tanks etc. None of which have an incentive to spill the beans because the system does their bidding.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    ....
    Ah, Iraq & Libya were both about choice so how can it be about no choice.

    Both were explicit actions.

    But did the US have any say over whether Mubarak should step down and over the ensuing developments ?

    All i've heard there is how Obama wants to be on the right side of history.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    To protect Karzai from Pakistan's vassals - well thought out policy. Thank God we have career diplomats and foreign policy experts running our foreign policy....
    hehe, what about expanding US influence in central asia. Karzai's already said he'll be stepping down after his term concludes.

    Why do you post under a Kyrgyz flag btw ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Jan 12, at 15:23.

  9. #69
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    All i've heard there is how Obama wants to be on the right side of history.
    Which is how people end up failing.

    Or the problem isn't as big that it only gets mentioned at election time.
    People focus on ex-wives not on the problems with our entrenched idiots who run foreign policy. Hard to put that into a thirty second ad.

    Advocates on both sides have to exaggerate their positions for effect. Trick is to be able to spot & account for it.
    Something you failed to do - "Mubarak era thinking"

    The future in other words. No doubt about whats happened so far but the future is an open question.
    Saying the future is far off in this case is just a way for you to duck the fact you really know little about the people of the area and what they would best identify with. You thought they were ready to be led by tweeting hipsters and talked about "Mubarak era thinking".

    Its unclear whether the election success of the Islamists translates into electorial support for an islamist agenda. Or did they get voted in because they were seen as the cleanest party out there.


    EIther way, when their term is up the next elections decide whether they stay or go.


    In Egypt, fights erupt at huge rally

    Aya Batrawy,Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press

    Saturday, January 28, 2012

    Muslim Brotherhood supporters and secular protesters hurled bottles and rocks at each other and got into fistfights in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Friday as their political differences boiled over at a rally by tens of thousands marking an anniversary in the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak.

    The scuffles, in which there were no reports of injury, were the first time the two sides have come to blows over resentments that have been rising between them since they worked together during the 18 days of protests against Mubarak a year ago.

    Now they are locked in a competition to shape the transition. The differences do not focus on the Brotherhood's religious agenda - though it worries many in the other camp. Instead, the divisions are over the military, which has ruled since Mubarak's fall, and ultimately whether dramatic change will be brought to Egypt's long-autocratic system.

    The "revolutionaries," the leftist and secular activists who launched the anti-Mubarak revolt, now demand that the ruling generals quit power immediately and have vowed protests to force them out. The Brotherhood, meanwhile, has vaulted to political domination by winning the largest bloc in the new parliament and has been willing to let the military follow its own timetable for stepping down.

    The revolutionaries suspect the Brotherhood will strike a deal with the ruling generals - giving them a future say in politics to ensure the Brotherhood's hold on authority and influence on the writing of a new constitution, effectively shelving serious reform. They also bristle over what they see as the Brotherhood's attempts to monopolize the political scene.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1kmO8hL40
    Last edited by troung; 28 Jan 12, at 18:41.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  10. #70
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Which is how people end up failing.
    Its a meaningless soundbite, what it exactly entails isn't clear. You can see in it whatever you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    People focus on ex-wives not on the problems with our entrenched idiots who run foreign policy. Hard to put that into a thirty second ad.
    Figure you're talking mainly about how the occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan went and the outcomes. The interference of the adminstration with the military over how things had to be done. There had to be been some serious issues for McChrystal to have quit in as acrimonous a manner as he did. Seemed very unprofessional but i wonder if people will see it that way or rather as he intended them to see it. A FUBAR situation on the ground as well as with the office.

    This you put down to career diplomats at the state dept. The old hands, experts on various regions.

    I'm sure there is broad agreement that both those outcomes weren't satisfactory, however what is to be done to fix the situaiton is likely to be divisive provided you even get a consensus on it. Its a messy turf battle.

    How did Iraq & Afghanistan compare to Vietnam ? Fewer american casualties, more effective regime change taking into account tech improvements , otherwise...

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Something you failed to do - "Mubarak era thinking"
    Have already qualified it.

    Its more than rose tinted 'viva la revolucion'

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Saying the future is far off in this case is just a way for you to duck the fact you really know little about the people of the area and what they would best identify with. You thought they were ready to be led by tweeting hipsters and talked about "Mubarak era thinking".
    Its an admission that i cannot predict the future with the same amount of confidence & accuracy that you claim to possess.

    And all you have to show for it is one assertion. A declaration in effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    You're being presumptious.

    Egypt will become the next Iran is your assertion. That means a regime that is necessarily at odds, irreconcilable odds at that, with Israel & western interests. Never mind anything else just that these two are essential components of any egyptian foreign policy. That this outcome is inevitable.

    In short you've made up your mind and have already written the situation off.

    How open will you therefore be to challenges on that assertion

    I don't say it will be a smooth ride, its going to be messy & rocky. Thats the nature of democracy, the fight for an accoutable govt is a long & arduous one.

    All sorts of creatures that have been under rocks are going to crawl out and interfere with the process. We will just have to deal with it. The Egyptians will have to come to terms with and deal with it. Ultimately this should produce a more stable & predictable adminstration in Egypt and the surrounding region. That is the optimist outlook. One that I think is apt because its too early to be otherwise at this point. No need to throw in the towel yet.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Jan 12, at 19:28.

  11. #71
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Its a meaningless soundbite, what it exactly entails isn't clear. You can see in it whatever you want.
    He wants to be popular and trendy right now - that's not how one leads.

    Its an admission that i cannot predict the future with the same amount of confidence & accuracy that you claim to possess.
    But you tried - talking here about how wonderful things would be and how he MB wasn't going to win. You were wrong, are still wrong and will keep on being wrong - because you are a pie in the sky dreamer who though because you and media types liked the secular hipsters everyone else must as well.

    Its more than rose tinted 'viva la revolucion'
    Dude that's all it was. No thinking took place at all - just glassy eyed slogans. It's is a cruel world out there - closing your eyes and covering your ears won't make it go away. If you were a nineteen year old Americans who had never left California this conversation would make some sense...

    A giant awakes
    RUTH POLLARD CAIRO
    28 Jan, 2012 12:24 PM
    http://www.myallcoastnota.com.au/new...px?storypage=0
    IT HAS been called a sleeping giant, a vast, secretive organisation that has been forced to live and work underground for most of the past 84 years. But since the fall of Hosni Mubarak's brutal 30-year rule last February, the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as a powerful force in Egyptian politics.

    Its newly formed Freedom and Justice Party was this week confirmed as winning 47 per cent of the vote in lower house elections. Raising alarm in the West and suspicion from liberal, secular and Coptic Egyptians, the Brotherhood's dominance in Egypt's new parliament (in which women's representation has dropped from 12 to 2 per cent), coupled with a strong showing from the ultra-conservative Salafist bloc, has changed the face of Egyptian politics overnight.

    Cautious and disciplined, the movement that was formed in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna aimed to regain some ''dignity and status'' for Egyptians who were repressed by British rule. It has since spawned hundreds of other Islamic movements, branches and affiliates in about 70 countries across the Arab and Muslim world.

    The Brotherhood's original mission was to Islamise society through promotion of Islamic law, values and morals, the Council on Foreign Relations says, combining religion, political activism and social welfare. Its slogans have included ''Islam is the solution'' and ''Jihad [struggle] is our way''.

    But getting beyond the vague religious doctrines and ancient mission statements, and into the specifics of what the Brotherhood is about - how it is financed, who its members are, how its decisions are made - is, for now, all but impossible.

    In his office in the elaborately decorated new Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in the Cairo neighbourhood of Muqattam - all heavy velvet drapes, marble-topped tables and gold leaf trim - the movement's chief spokesman, Dr Mahmoud Ghozlan, has little to say about financial matters.

    ''We don't give the numbers,'' he says matter-of-factly. ''In the Mubarak era it was very dangerous to give numbers or lists of members because it was very easy to arrest these people. Maybe after a while we will announce all of these things.''

    He says the group has hundreds of thousands of members in Egypt, all required to pay 7-10 per cent of their salaries to the movement. The wealthy businessmen on their books pay much more. It is as much detail as we will get.

    Ghozlan acknowledges the country faces enormous challenges. ''The previous regime left huge, complicated problems for Egypt in all aspects of life. Egypt now needs two processes, first to purify itself from the remnants of the ex-regime, and the second to rebuild the country.''

    Yet it is difficult to see how Egypt can tackle its most entrenched problems - high unemployment, dwindling foreign reserves, poor international investment, corruption and a population desperate for a better life - when its major political movement cannot speak openly about its own organisation.

    Keeping its secrets, it seems, is one skill in which the Brotherhood has been forced to excel.

    ''The Brotherhood was founded as a legal organisation back in the late 1920s, but it lost its legal status - essentially it was banned as an organisation in the late 1940s,'' says Nathan Brown, professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ''That means that for over half a century it has … continued to operate, but it has done so essentially off the books and sometimes underground.''

    Over the past two decades it has been ''loosely tolerated by the Mubarak regime'', he says, with periodic crackdowns. ''So what that means is that questions about the movement's finances, about the number of its members, certainly the identity of its members, some of its internal decision-making structures, all those are considered by the Brotherhood 'off limits' to people from outside the organisation.''

    When Mubarak fell on February 11, the Brotherhood was finally able to step out from the shadows of 80 years of opposition and into the political arena.

    ''There can be no question that genuine democracy must prevail,'' one of its spokesmen, Mohammad Mursi, wrote in The Guardian as Mubarak's regime teetered on the edge of collapse. ''While the Muslim Brotherhood is unequivocal regarding its basis in Islamic thought, it rejects any attempt to enforce any ideological line upon the Egyptian people.''

    Six months ago, it formed a legally recognised political party - the Freedom and Justice Party, whose secretary-general, Mohamed Saad al-Katatni, has been elected as the speaker of parliament - and it now faces a very different political environment.

    ''Suddenly they are going to operate in a system which is much more open, and where answering the question 'Who's funding you?' [with] 'It's none of your business' doesn't wash any more. The Brotherhood will clearly have to make adjustments to the new environment, but the leaders of the old organisation were still very much schooled in the old ways of secrecy and handling internal matters very, very far from external scrutiny,'' Brown says.

    Khairat al-Shater, a multi-millionaire Egyptian businessman whose financial interests span electronics, manufacturing and retail, is known as the Brotherhood's money man. Like much of the movement, he is a devotee of a free market economy and a strong advocate of privatisation and attracting new foreign investment to Egypt. He is believed to be one of a handful of businessmen who helped to finance the Freedom and Justice Party's decisive electoral victory and is now tasked with helping to craft the party's economic policies.

    Al-Shater was accused by the Mubarak regime of being the above-ground, legitimate financial arm of the Brotherhood when it was not a legally recognised organisation, says Nathan Brown. ''The regime said he was putting in his own name on Muslim Brotherhood financial concerns - he, of course, denies this.''

    But, Brown notes, as the Brotherhood gradually moves its operations above ground, it will no longer have ''to resort to legal subterfuge and, as a result, we might get a slightly better sense of their finances''.

    ''There are certainly very deep suspicions of the Brotherhood on all different kinds of grounds, including the financial ones,'' he says.

    Could the secrecy surrounding political donations and the potential influence of those donations corrupt what is recognised, to date, as a relatively clean movement?

    ''I don't think so. There are certainly some very wealthy businessmen who support the movement but … up to now their Brotherhood associations have cost them rather than rewarded them.''

    Brown says there has always been talk of foreign funding for the Brotherhood - mostly from the Gulf states - although there has been little conclusive evidence of its scale. ''In the 1950s, when the Brotherhood was crushed in Egypt, a lot of its leaders went abroad and a lot went to the Gulf, so my sense is it is Egyptians who got wealthy working in the Arabian peninsula who are making the donations.''

    Despite renouncing violence decades ago after its early forays into assassination and bombing campaigns, the Brotherhood's importance as a springboard towards more radical Islamic movements for individuals such as al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is well known. The late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was often spoken of as a member, although there is no evidence he ever joined the movement, just that he fought alongside its volunteers in Palestine in 1948.

    Speculation about its other alumni is ongoing, although direct links are difficult to make. ''We are talking about a trans-national movement … which has branches all over the world - any [Brotherhood] chairman in any other country will be subjected to the measure and the principle of the leadership here in Egypt,'' says Dr Hala Mustafa, commentator and editor-in-chief of the journal Democracy.

    Soon after the Brotherhood's humble beginnings in 1928 in Egypt, its founder, al-Banna, inspired Muslims in other countries to found their own chapters in the Arab world and as far away as Indonesia, Brown says.

    In nearby Tunisia - the first country to depose its leader in the people's revolutions that have rolled across the Middle East and North Africa in the past year - the moderate Islamist Ennahda Party took power in elections late last year. While Ennahda is not officially affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, it is associated, Brown says, and the two watch each other closely. So, too, the Islamist party in Morocco.

    ''These movements … study each other and actually are, many of them, formally but loosely linked to a sort of international brotherhood organisation.''

    However, the West must look at these parties and movements individually, Brown says, in order to get an accurate understanding of what each chapter stands for. A case in point is Hamas, the Palestinian group that controls Gaza. ''Hamas has an armed wing, while the Brotherhood in Egypt renounced the violence half a century ago.''

    Brown says that for a lot of the Brotherhood in Egypt, Gaza is little more than a charity case. ''It is also important to recognise that not all Islamist movements are Brotherhood movements,'' he says, citing the Salafist movement in Egypt, which is a competitor of the Brotherhood and now forms the second-largest bloc in the Egyptian parliament.

    On the key question of Israel, there is a perceptible difference between the way the Muslim Brotherhood deals with the Camp David accords and the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and the way the Freedom and Justice Party tackles the same issue.

    The party - faced with the enormity of the problems confronting Egypt after the corruption and cronyism of 30 years under the Mubarak regime - would rather talk of anything else but the Israeli treaty, Brown says.

    Ghozlan, the Brotherhood spokesman, is more forthcoming. ''We think this treaty is imposed on us from outside our country. And we think it is an unjust treaty. Because it removes our sovereignty in Sinai … we cannot built an airport there, we cannot send our troops inside the Sinai to protect our borders.

    ''We think that the Israelis do not respect [the treaty], because they have [undertaken] many attacks against our soldiers without any justification. We have to review it again, if the people want that, via the parliament. And we call Israel to respect it, also.''

    But as Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel and vice-president of the Brookings Institution, wrote this week after a visit to Cairo, the Brotherhood leaders ''understand they have to make a choice between feeding the people and fighting Israel, and for the time being they have made a conscious choice of bread over bombs''.

    Despite playing a front-line role in Egypt's revolution, however, women are now in an even worse situation than during Mubarak's reign, when they held 12 per cent of seats in the last parliament. More than 370 women ran as candidates in the elections, which began on November 28 and ran over two months. When the results were announced this week, the extent of their failure was laid bare - women hold just 2 per cent of seats.

    Part of the problem was the major parties' decision to run female candidates a long way down the ticket. And when the Salafi parties included women on their candidate lists, their faces were replaced with pictures of flowers on campaign posters, after the party leadership deemed the display of photographs of women in public inappropriate.

    Hala Mustafa has real concerns about how long the Muslim Brotherhood's public statements professing moderate policies on women and minorities will last in a parliament where more conservative elements are at play. ''I see many experiences around me in the Middle East … in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Sudan. After a very short time, they [Islamists] go back to focus on their moral agenda, watching women, excluding them, marginalising them, talking about separation between the two genders, banning alcohol, interfering in the personal lives of people … also excluding or marginalising minorities with different religion.

    ''I hope, but I am not sure, that they [the Muslim Brotherhood] will present a different model.''

    There is no doubt the next six months will be politically unstable in Egypt, where key players will ''fight for control of the steering wheel'', Brown says. ''But if the military actually does follow the timetable it has promised and stand down following the presidential elections in the middle of the year, what you will have is a popularly elected president … and the Brotherhood and its allies being able to put together something close to a majority in parliament - then you will have stability.

    ''There are all kinds of things that could go wrong, but the fact that the military has managed things so badly to date makes me think it is more likely that they will at least leave most civilian political and economic affairs alone.''

    This, however, is not common wisdom among Egyptians, who just see disorder and chaos ahead. Like many analysts, Ed Husain, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of political Islam is not necessarily a phenomenon to be feared.

    In his blog, The Arab Street, Husain wrote this week that ''secular-minded Egyptians must not be too harsh on themselves'' about their poor showing in the recent elections.

    ''It is because of their success that the Muslim Brotherhood has gone from assassinating Egypt's prime minister in 1948 and creating jihadi training camps in the 1940s, to now embracing parliamentary democracy.''

    But, he notes, Egypt's liberals have a long way to go before they come close to presenting an alternative to the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party. ''Egypt's liberals should join political parties and undertake the political hard grind necessary to win hearts and minds. Activism on Facebook and Twitter alone does not win elections - networks, narratives, resources, and leadership are crucial.''

    And, at the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood possesses these qualities in spades.

    Ruth Pollard is Middle East correspondent.
    Last edited by troung; 28 Jan 12, at 19:50.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  12. #72
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    You were wrong, are still wrong and will keep on being wrong - because you are a pie in the sky dreamer who though because you and media types liked the secular hipsters everyone else must as well.
    Time for you to tell us what to expect with the MB in charge. Try to say more than 'its going to be like Iran'.

    Will Farsi become the national language in Egypt now ? what ?

    Otherwise i don't see anything new in the article you posted. Looks balanced to me.

  13. #73
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Time for you to tell us what to expect with the MB in charge.
    They will move from the warm and "touchy feely" front they are putting up after they are on firmer feet and push their radical agenda.

    Will Farsi become the national language in Egypt now ? what ?
    Nice try Baghdad Bob.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  14. #74
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    ....

    Egypt gets dumped by its Washington lobbyists
    Posted By Josh Rogin Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 9:04 AM Share
    Egypt gets dumped by its Washington lobbyists | The Cable
    All three of the lobbying firms representing the Egyptian government in Washington, D.C., dropped Egypt as a client late Friday amid widespread criticism of the ruling military council's raid of U.S. NGOs in Cairo and its refusal to let American NGO workers leave the country.

    The Livingston Group, run by former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), the Moffett Group, run by former Rep. Toby Moffett (D-CT), and the Podesta Group, run by Tony Podesta, unanimously severed their combined $90,000 per month contract with the Egyptian government, Politico reported late Friday, quoting Livingston directly. The three firms had formed what is known as the PLM Group, a lobbying entity created to advocate on behalf of the regime of former President Hosni Mubarak, who was deposed in February 2011 after 18 days of massive street protests. According to the disclosure filings, Egypt has paid PLM more than $4 million since 2007.

    The trio came under fire last week for circulating talking points defending Egypt's Dec. 29 raid of several NGOs working to train political parties in Egypt, including three organizations partially funded by the U.S. government. The groups had been working in Egypt for years without being technically registered with the government, but now stand accused of fomenting unrest against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has been ruling the country since Mubarak's ouster.

    "It is bad enough when the actions of American lobbyists conflict with U.S. national interests. It is far worse when their influence-peddling undermines American values, as the Egyptian government's lobbyists in Washington are doing in this instance," said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in a Jan. 24 statement. McCain is the chairman of the board of the International Republican Institute (IRI), one of the groups that had their Cairo offices raided. The other two groups were the National Democratic Institute, whose board is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Freedom House.

    The anger in Washington against the Egyptian government reached a boiling point when it was revealed Jan. 26 that U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's son Sam LaHood, the head of IRI's Cairo office, had been barred from leaving Egypt by the government along with five other U.S. citizens.

    "To have an American lobbyist lobbying for a government where these activities are taking place -- is there no shame in this town?" said Rep. Frank Wolf on Thursday.

    On Friday, Sam LaHood told NPR that he and the other Americans trapped in Egypt could face criminal charges, lengthy trials, and years of prison time.

    "If we are referred to trial," LaHood said. "The trial could last up to a year ... and the potential penalty is six months to five years in jail."

    The lobbying groups buckled under the public pressure, recognizing that they couldn't influence the SCAF's actions in this case and that their association with the military council was harming their broader image. For years, these firms have been defending the Egyptian military's $1.3 billion annual aid package on Capitol Hill and lobbying for non-military aid to go through the government, and not directly to independent organizations as many democracy advocates urged.

    The Cable reported that in late 2010, Bob Livingston personally called Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) to get him to kill a Senate resolution calling for greater respect for human rights and democracy in Egypt. Wicker placed a hold on the resolution and it died in the Senate.

    Egypt's lobbyists were also responsible for negotiating an endowment the Egyptian government wanted from the Obama administration. But the Mubarak regime demanded the money be given with no annual Congressional oversight, and the negotiations broke down.

    Congress did place new restrictions on military aid to Egypt in the most recent appropriations bill passed in December, as a way of pressing the SCAF to move faster toward handing over its executive powers to an elected government.

    According to the legislation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must certify that the Egyptian government is living up to the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and that the SCAF is supporting the transition to civilian rule. Multiple congressional aides told The Cable Friday that the aid is now in serious jeopardy.

    "Needless to say, this whole crisis is going to make it a lot more difficult for the secretary of state to meet the certification requirements to continue providing assistance to Egypt," one senior Senate aide told The Cable. "People up here are completely seized with this issue. They're putting their friends in a really awful spot."

    Another senior Senate aide noted that the Obama administration is doing a lot of work behind the scenes to deescalate the crisis, which is threatening to do long-term harm to the official U.S.-Egypt relationship.

    President Barack Obama brought up the raids in a call last week with SCAF leader Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, according to the White House. Clinton, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Lahood have been working the phones hard, calling contacts in Egypt to send strong messages and implore them to change course. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Labor, and Human Rights Michael Posner was in Egypt on Jan. 26 and met with high-level Egyptian officials.

    "Since the NGO raids in late December, the Obama administration has repeatedly provided paths for the SCAF to deescalate this crisis. Instead they keep escalating -- doubling down on a bad bet that, in the end, will prove ruinous to them," the Senate aide said. "Three weeks ago no one in Congress thought there was a chance in hell that aid to the Egyptian military could ever come under serious threat. It is now an increasingly and shockingly real prospect."

    Ironically, McCain and Lieberman had been among the U.S. leaders most supportive of the SCAF and its role in maintaining stability during Egypt's fragile transition.

    Many in Washington believe that the SCAF is being heavily influenced on this issue by one civilian Egyptian official, Fayza Abul-Naga, the minister of international cooperation and a holdover from the Mubarak era. In a speech this week, she disavowed the SCAF's previous promises to return the NGOs' raided possessions and cease harassing them as she lashed out at the American NGO groups.

    Lorne Craner, the president of IRI, said in an interview Friday with The Cable that there is bad blood between Abul-Naga's ministry and the NGO groups. "Some people say that the people who used to get the money, for example the minister of international cooperation, resent the fact that they are not getting all of the funding," Craner said.

    Meanwhile, the Americans and several of their locally hired staffers are enduring hours-long interviews as they await a possible arrest, which would only escalate the crisis.

    "Things have gone from bad to worse," Craner said. "You start to think about Americans getting arrested on the streets of Cairo and sitting in a cage in some Cairo court ... And these are our allies."

    UPDATE: On Sunday the Egyptian Embassy in Washington issued a statement claiming they dumped the PLM Group, not the other way around:
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  15. #75
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,679
    "It is bad enough when the actions of American lobbyists conflict with U.S. national interests. It is far worse when their influence-peddling undermines American values, as the Egyptian government's lobbyists in Washington are doing in this instance," said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in a Jan. 24 statement.
    And there you have it. Washington supports the new regime.

    Congress did place new restrictions on military aid to Egypt in the most recent appropriations bill passed in December, as a way of pressing the SCAF to move faster toward handing over its executive powers to an elected government.

    According to the legislation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must certify that the Egyptian government is living up to the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and that the SCAF is supporting the transition to civilian rule. Multiple congressional aides told The Cable Friday that the aid is now in serious jeopardy.
    Could this be why the MB said the peace treaty should be put to a referendum.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ElBaradei Under House Arrest as Demonstrations Rock Cairo
    By Tarek Morgen in forum Arab Protests of 2010-2011
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29 Jan 11,, 13:14
  2. ElBaradei reappointed
    By SloMax in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Jun 05,, 21:03
  3. Those liberals
    By Major_Armstrong in forum International Politics
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 22 Dec 04,, 23:25
  4. ElBaradei For the Sack..
    By aussie in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Dec 04,, 21:11

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •