Neocons held no love for Egypt’s deposed President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood, which some felt threatened the US “influence” over Egyptian affairs that is rented with the annual $1.5 billion foreign assistance check. That a democracy was to be undermined by tanks was no big deal to them – it’s all about influence.
Charles Krauthammer said: “We have no particular stake in Egypt’s economy. Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?”
Read the entire article
neocons "counterfeit conservatives" exposed
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egypt. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Egypt, coup and the United States
The result of the United States’ test in the Middle East since the
occupation of Iraq is the series of breaking points it is going through
right now. It is high time that the American
policies, which have only been perceived in terms of occupations and
the scales of power in the legitimacy bubble of 9/11, are put on the
table for a closer look. With its occupation of Iraq, America, whether
intentionally or not, triggered the fault lines in the region. America’s
relationship with the region got even more complicated after the Arab
uprisings. Obama, who took office after two terms of neocon
administration, at first, gave signals of a different foreign policy
path. Nevertheless, despite indications of their determination to make
up for the harm done in the Neocon period, the Obama administration
failed to follow a tangible and unwavering policy in the region. He
preferred the antidemocratic, but risk free world of the old order, to
the more democratic but unpredictably, ambiguous world of the new
order.
Read the entire article
Read the entire article
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The neoconservative split over Egypt
Remember the neocons? They were the powerful and controversial group of thinkers who argued that the promotion of democracy in the Middle East was the key to winning the “war on terror”. The influence of the neocons peaked during the Bush administration, when they became vocal advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
Many of the critics of the neocons always argued that all this talk of “democracy” was simply a hypocritical mask for the promotion of US or Israeli interests. So I was interested to see how leading neocon thinkers have reacted to the coup in Egypt and the assault on the Muslim Brotherhood. Have they kept the democratic faith, or have they gone along with the military?
The answer seems to be that leading neocon thinkers have gone in different directions. Robert Kagan, author of “Of Paradise and Power”, is outraged by the coup. He is co-chair of a think-tank working group on Egypt that has issued a statement demanding that the US cut off aid to the Egyptian military. The statement reads, in part:
Monday, February 06, 2012
Egyptian Fantasies, American NeoCon dreams
Well, surprising that, denouncing the USA, after USA poured billions and billions into supporting the very regime they were toppling.
As for the idea of liberalism in the revolution... What a peculiar fantasy.
Thus, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt in March 2011, a group of leading activists refused to meet with her. They also turned out to be intolerant conspiracy theorists: When classically Cairoesque rumors that a “Jewish Masonic” ceremony was to be held at the pyramids on November 11, the April 6th Youth Movement’s Democratic Front declared that this non-existent event should be prohibited. “We are committed to the achievements of the revolution, which emphasized freedom,” they said in a statement. “But freedom is not absolute freedom, and … it is constrained by the regulations and beliefs of the Egyptian people, who do not accept that these celebrations be protected in the wake of the revolution.”
Oh how very surprising.... Egyptian political culture was not magically transformed by people bopping around Tahrir Square. Stunning insight.
As for the idea of liberalism in the revolution... What a peculiar fantasy.
Thus, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt in March 2011, a group of leading activists refused to meet with her. They also turned out to be intolerant conspiracy theorists: When classically Cairoesque rumors that a “Jewish Masonic” ceremony was to be held at the pyramids on November 11, the April 6th Youth Movement’s Democratic Front declared that this non-existent event should be prohibited. “We are committed to the achievements of the revolution, which emphasized freedom,” they said in a statement. “But freedom is not absolute freedom, and … it is constrained by the regulations and beliefs of the Egyptian people, who do not accept that these celebrations be protected in the wake of the revolution.”
Oh how very surprising.... Egyptian political culture was not magically transformed by people bopping around Tahrir Square. Stunning insight.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The upheaval in Egypt revealed the true divide between Israelis and U.S. neocons
But the events in Egypt have laid bare a stark divide between neoconservatives and the Israeli elite: While the former are ecstatic about the fall of Mubarak and the prospect of a democratic Egypt, the latter are wary—at best. “Supporting democracy is part of the genetic code of Americans,” says Martin Kramer, a senior fellow at Jerusalem’s Shalem Center. “Israelis,” on the other hand, “like the status quo.”
Putting pressure on the Middle East’s sclerotic and corrupt governments to liberalize is the touchstone of the U.S. neoconservative foreign policy project, as embodied in the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2002 and made manifest with the war in Iraq. With regard to Egypt, one of the earliest and most persistent critics of the Mubarak regime was Robert Kagan, the preeminent neoconservative intellectual. Over a year ago, Kagan formed a bipartisan Working Group on Egypt that issued a stream of reports and statements warning about the potential for mass volatility in the country. In June, he co-authored a Washington Post op-ed alleging that the White House was “repeating the mistake that Cold War-era administrations made when they supported right-wing dictatorships—right up until the point when they were toppled by radical forces.” “The delegitimizing of Mubarak began with the neocons,” Kramer explains.
Putting pressure on the Middle East’s sclerotic and corrupt governments to liberalize is the touchstone of the U.S. neoconservative foreign policy project, as embodied in the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2002 and made manifest with the war in Iraq. With regard to Egypt, one of the earliest and most persistent critics of the Mubarak regime was Robert Kagan, the preeminent neoconservative intellectual. Over a year ago, Kagan formed a bipartisan Working Group on Egypt that issued a stream of reports and statements warning about the potential for mass volatility in the country. In June, he co-authored a Washington Post op-ed alleging that the White House was “repeating the mistake that Cold War-era administrations made when they supported right-wing dictatorships—right up until the point when they were toppled by radical forces.” “The delegitimizing of Mubarak began with the neocons,” Kramer explains.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt: Down Is Suddenly Up for the Neocons
In order to understand the neocons, we need constantly to bear in mind three of their fundamental principles:
1. The dialectic. We can contradict today what we fervently asserted yesterday, without penalty, because we are superior to those from whom we demand consistency.
2. Amnesia. The masses will soon forget what we advocated yesterday, so we can freely oppose it today.
3. We ALWAYS blame somebody else for the consequences of our own policies, actions, and falsehoods.
With these “principles” (see what I mean?) in mind, it is easy to assess the neocon screaming that the “democracy” they pretended to advocate yesteryear is suddenly dangerous because, omigosh, the people demanding an end to US-supported tyrannies are so backward that they need our abiding guidance — directed through our taxpayer-funded, corrupt stooges, of course. All tyrants are equal, but some tyrants are more equal than others.
With all this in mind, isn’t it fun to watch them blame “Obama” for supporting the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak? Lest you scratch your head and begin remembering the Democracy Bomber Bush, you must be distracted into a ditch of petty politics.
1. The dialectic. We can contradict today what we fervently asserted yesterday, without penalty, because we are superior to those from whom we demand consistency.
2. Amnesia. The masses will soon forget what we advocated yesterday, so we can freely oppose it today.
3. We ALWAYS blame somebody else for the consequences of our own policies, actions, and falsehoods.
With these “principles” (see what I mean?) in mind, it is easy to assess the neocon screaming that the “democracy” they pretended to advocate yesteryear is suddenly dangerous because, omigosh, the people demanding an end to US-supported tyrannies are so backward that they need our abiding guidance — directed through our taxpayer-funded, corrupt stooges, of course. All tyrants are equal, but some tyrants are more equal than others.
With all this in mind, isn’t it fun to watch them blame “Obama” for supporting the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak? Lest you scratch your head and begin remembering the Democracy Bomber Bush, you must be distracted into a ditch of petty politics.
George W. Bush. The Liberator of Egypt
The spin campaign to resuscitate the reputation of George W. Bush has begun. The usual Neocon suspects, such as Elliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer, and Reuel Marc Gerecht are writing op-ed pieces arguing that the Egyptian revolution of 2011 all began with George W. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda.” Krauthammer penned the following:
Men like Krauthammer and Abrams when they are in full propaganda mode do not stint. Bush is being compared to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill in his steadfast devotion to democracy for everyone and his appreciation of the subtle fact that democracy is much more than fair elections every few years. It is freedom of the press, healthy opposition parties, and respect for the law. If you are going to drag up George Bush’s reputation from the stygian depths in which it now resides – so low that he reportedly has canceled a trip to Switzerland for fear he would be arrested for war crimes – than you might as well go for the long shot. Turn him into a Churchillian visionary. Lavishly quote the speeches you wrote for him because, obviously, they are every bit as eloquent and stirring as anything Churchill wrote.
Men like Krauthammer and Abrams when they are in full propaganda mode do not stint. Bush is being compared to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill in his steadfast devotion to democracy for everyone and his appreciation of the subtle fact that democracy is much more than fair elections every few years. It is freedom of the press, healthy opposition parties, and respect for the law. If you are going to drag up George Bush’s reputation from the stygian depths in which it now resides – so low that he reportedly has canceled a trip to Switzerland for fear he would be arrested for war crimes – than you might as well go for the long shot. Turn him into a Churchillian visionary. Lavishly quote the speeches you wrote for him because, obviously, they are every bit as eloquent and stirring as anything Churchill wrote.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Behold, Neocon Egypt Hypocrisy!
Professional prognosticator and leading Iraq War cheerleader Max Boot is still telling Arabs what to do, albeit with a liberal-sounding post-Egypt twist:
There is a lesson here for those not too fanatical or deluded to learn it. Put down the bomb, the sniper rifle, whatever weapon you have, and grab a placard, go on Twitter, organize a rally. True, many peaceful protests have been repressed too, as we have seen most recently in Iran; but they offer a much surer road to regime change than does blowing up innocent people.
Fair enough. Unless it comes from Boot, an unreconstructed neocon with a loose grip on factual arguments, who's written books called Small Wars and the Rise of American Power and War Made New...and whose first hawkish defense of war in Iraq, written for the New York Times in October 2002, was titled "Who Says We Never Strike First?" "We're going to be called an empire whatever we do," he wrote the following year in the USA Today. "We might as well be a successful empire."
As Mideast scholar (and MJ contributor) Juan Cole puts it, "Boot never saw a war he didn't love, never saw a conquest he didn't find exhilarating, never saw an occupied land he didn't think could be handled...Bootism is the disease, not the cure."
There is a lesson here for those not too fanatical or deluded to learn it. Put down the bomb, the sniper rifle, whatever weapon you have, and grab a placard, go on Twitter, organize a rally. True, many peaceful protests have been repressed too, as we have seen most recently in Iran; but they offer a much surer road to regime change than does blowing up innocent people.
Fair enough. Unless it comes from Boot, an unreconstructed neocon with a loose grip on factual arguments, who's written books called Small Wars and the Rise of American Power and War Made New...and whose first hawkish defense of war in Iraq, written for the New York Times in October 2002, was titled "Who Says We Never Strike First?" "We're going to be called an empire whatever we do," he wrote the following year in the USA Today. "We might as well be a successful empire."
As Mideast scholar (and MJ contributor) Juan Cole puts it, "Boot never saw a war he didn't love, never saw a conquest he didn't find exhilarating, never saw an occupied land he didn't think could be handled...Bootism is the disease, not the cure."
Friday, February 11, 2011
Beware the Neocon Advocacy of Egyptian Democracy
It is essential to take William (“Bill”) Kristol seriously. He has been so utterly wrong on so many things (America’s ability to run the world, NATO, Turkey, the Balkans, Chechnya, Iraq, Sarah Palin, Russia, Iran, Georgia, John McCain, missile defense . . . ) that his pronouncements merit respect. Being consistently wrong—in the fleeting guise of things measurably empirical, that is—they contain a deeper wisdom. Kristol’s “analysis” is the equivalent of Tetzel’s dropping penny: The form may seem inane, but the message reverberates in faraway places.
Bill Kristol matters, so please bear with me and endure the longest quote I’ve ever copied to these pages over the past decade, because a mere hyperlink won’t do:
And yet . . . Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the magnitude of Kristol’s idiocy is so breathtaking that it cannot be accidental. There are 12 to 15 red flags one could grab and exploit for all their rhetorical, logical, historical, legal, and moral worth.
Bill Kristol matters, so please bear with me and endure the longest quote I’ve ever copied to these pages over the past decade, because a mere hyperlink won’t do:
And yet . . . Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the magnitude of Kristol’s idiocy is so breathtaking that it cannot be accidental. There are 12 to 15 red flags one could grab and exploit for all their rhetorical, logical, historical, legal, and moral worth.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
The Neocons’ Egypt Dilemma
On the surface, the situation in Egypt right now would seem tailor-made for automatic neocon approval: a country chafing under the rule of a repressive and entrenched leader, its people eager for more democracy, and protesting in the streets on their own behalf. And yet it’s not so simple.
Amal, a head-scarfed Egyptian woman in Tahrir Square, is quoted as saying, “We need democracy in Egypt. … We just want what you have.” But if Amal were asked exactly what she means by the word “democracy,” would she include the safeguards that go hand-in-hand with democracy in order to secure liberty, and without which it can so easily decline into “one person, one vote, one time”? What if forces for oppression in Egypt that are far worse than Mubarak end up opportunistically coming into the ascendance in the vacuum left by his departure?
But why would some neocons who supported the invasion of Iraq, and the overwhelmingly difficult task of establishing a democracy there, advocate more caution in Egypt? Likewise, why would some who criticized Obama’s 2009 recalcitrance to support the pro-democracy forces in Iran now advocate going slowly in Egypt?
Amal, a head-scarfed Egyptian woman in Tahrir Square, is quoted as saying, “We need democracy in Egypt. … We just want what you have.” But if Amal were asked exactly what she means by the word “democracy,” would she include the safeguards that go hand-in-hand with democracy in order to secure liberty, and without which it can so easily decline into “one person, one vote, one time”? What if forces for oppression in Egypt that are far worse than Mubarak end up opportunistically coming into the ascendance in the vacuum left by his departure?
But why would some neocons who supported the invasion of Iraq, and the overwhelmingly difficult task of establishing a democracy there, advocate more caution in Egypt? Likewise, why would some who criticized Obama’s 2009 recalcitrance to support the pro-democracy forces in Iran now advocate going slowly in Egypt?
Saturday, February 05, 2011
US right-wingers split over Egypt protests
You might have thought the American right would welcome the sight of people power in Tunisia and Egypt after lecturing the Arab world on democracy for so long.
Instead it has divided them - with some calling on President Hosni Mubarak to go but some neocons preferring the status quo, even as it collapses.
One right-wing TV anchor talks of "the destruction of the Western world", portraying the protests as a covert power grab by Islamic radicals leading to a new caliphate across the Mediterranean.
Many of these critics were once vocal supporters of President George W Bush and his belief that invading Iraq would bring democracy to the region.
Instead it has divided them - with some calling on President Hosni Mubarak to go but some neocons preferring the status quo, even as it collapses.
One right-wing TV anchor talks of "the destruction of the Western world", portraying the protests as a covert power grab by Islamic radicals leading to a new caliphate across the Mediterranean.
Many of these critics were once vocal supporters of President George W Bush and his belief that invading Iraq would bring democracy to the region.
John Bolton and the Neocon/Hawk Split on Egypt
The crisis in Egypt has exposed the divisions that separate neoconservatives from other hawkish conservatives (I’m not exactly sure which label to put on this latter group). People often confuse these two groups as one in the same, because they both are generally supportive of aggressive military action, skeptical of international institutions that undermine U.S. interests, strong defenders of Israel, often advocates of regime change, and so forth. But this other group is much more skeptical of democracy promotion.
A perfect way to demonstrate this divide is to look at John Bolton, who has often been misidentified as a neoconservative because he supported many of the same policies, but he has always eschewed this label – in Iraq, for instance, he’s said we should have toppled Saddam and then pulled out once we captured him. He was not on board with the nation building part. Not surprisingly, when it comes to Egypt, as many neoconservatives are cheerleading the protesters, Bolton has said:
A perfect way to demonstrate this divide is to look at John Bolton, who has often been misidentified as a neoconservative because he supported many of the same policies, but he has always eschewed this label – in Iraq, for instance, he’s said we should have toppled Saddam and then pulled out once we captured him. He was not on board with the nation building part. Not surprisingly, when it comes to Egypt, as many neoconservatives are cheerleading the protesters, Bolton has said:
Whither the Party Line on Egypt?
Revolutions of world-historic potential, such as we are presently witnessing in Egypt, only happen once in a generation. There is enough awkwardness among the Washington establishment—bewildered at the sight of an uprising against a client state—that they are completely helpless to do much of anything in the face of the tumult on the Egyptian street. But no one is confronting a more awkward comeuppance, and responding to it more erratically, than the neoconservatives.
Champions of President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda,” the neoconservatives have repeatedly found themselves facing the discomforting reality that democratic change in the Middle East has more often than not led to the emergence of governments that are opposed to the state of Israel. First there was Hamas. Then Hezbollah. Now, potentially, the Muslim Brotherhood.
And yet, instead of injecting a bit of realism into their logic, these events have forced neocons to feverishly grasp either of two contrary positions: The freedom crowd sees the uprising in Egypt as vindication of Bush’s “global democratic revolution”; the Islamophobes have begun their predictable fear mongering about the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of the global Caliphate.
Champions of President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda,” the neoconservatives have repeatedly found themselves facing the discomforting reality that democratic change in the Middle East has more often than not led to the emergence of governments that are opposed to the state of Israel. First there was Hamas. Then Hezbollah. Now, potentially, the Muslim Brotherhood.
And yet, instead of injecting a bit of realism into their logic, these events have forced neocons to feverishly grasp either of two contrary positions: The freedom crowd sees the uprising in Egypt as vindication of Bush’s “global democratic revolution”; the Islamophobes have begun their predictable fear mongering about the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of the global Caliphate.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Hosni Mubarak splits Israel from neocon supporters
As Israeli leaders worriedly eye the protests and street battles in neighboring Egypt, they’ve been dismayed to find that the neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats who are usually their most reliable American advocates are cheering for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s fall.
The Egyptian autocrat has kept his side of a chilly peace agreement with Israel for thirty years, permitting an era of relative stability in the Jewish state. And as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear in a cautious speech to the Knesset Wednesday, Israel is deeply worried what will happen to that relationship when Mubarak departs.
In particular, neoconservatives such as Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Bush National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, and scholar Robert Kagan are essentially saying good riddance to Mubarak and chiding Obama mainly for not making the same sporadic push for democracy as President George W. Bush.
The Egyptian autocrat has kept his side of a chilly peace agreement with Israel for thirty years, permitting an era of relative stability in the Jewish state. And as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear in a cautious speech to the Knesset Wednesday, Israel is deeply worried what will happen to that relationship when Mubarak departs.
In particular, neoconservatives such as Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, Bush National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, and scholar Robert Kagan are essentially saying good riddance to Mubarak and chiding Obama mainly for not making the same sporadic push for democracy as President George W. Bush.
Neocons’ Tepid Reaction to the Egyptian Democratic Revolution
The uprisings currently taking place against the autocratic regimes in the Middle East would seem to be in line with the neoconservatives’ advocacy of radical democratic change in the region. But there is one significant difference. The neocons had sought to use democratic revolutions to overthrow the enemies of Israel, even applying it, much less successfully, to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which were client states of the United States; but now democratic revolution is engulfing the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which maintained friendly relations with Israel. As Israeli writer Aluf Benn points out in Ha’aretz, “[t]he fading power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government leaves Israel in a state of strategic distress. Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East.” [“Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast,” January 29, 2010, ] In a situation where Israeli interests would be harmed by democratic revolution, the neocons’ ardor for this development has cooled dramatically.
Daniel Luban on Lobelog points out that in the first days of the Egyptian revolution the neocons were largely silent on this development and those who commented tended to express some skepticism as to its likelihood to bring about positive results. He quotes The Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith cautioning U.S. activists not to become too fond of the Egyptian demonstrators: “It is not always a good thing when people go to the streets; indeed the history of revolutionary action shows that people go to the streets to shed blood more often than they do to demand democratic reforms.” Luban predicts that “[i]f the protests are ultimately unsuccessful, the neocons will attack Obama for letting the protesters twist in the wind; if the protests are ultimately successful, they will claim the events in Egypt as vindication for the Bush democracy promotion agenda.”
Daniel Luban on Lobelog points out that in the first days of the Egyptian revolution the neocons were largely silent on this development and those who commented tended to express some skepticism as to its likelihood to bring about positive results. He quotes The Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith cautioning U.S. activists not to become too fond of the Egyptian demonstrators: “It is not always a good thing when people go to the streets; indeed the history of revolutionary action shows that people go to the streets to shed blood more often than they do to demand democratic reforms.” Luban predicts that “[i]f the protests are ultimately unsuccessful, the neocons will attack Obama for letting the protesters twist in the wind; if the protests are ultimately successful, they will claim the events in Egypt as vindication for the Bush democracy promotion agenda.”
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Neocon Delights over Egypt
In this Washington Post op-ed ridiculously titled "Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world," Elliot Abrams attempts to show how GWB's democracy agenda forecast the desire for the Arab peoples of the Middle Eastern nations to be free. He says:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. "As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."
While neocons want to somehow take credit for understanding the Middle East, the current conflict is more indicative of the failures of US foreign policy than any successful understanding. Considering that Abrams was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, a signatory of PNAC, and one of the main cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion, you'd think that he would be the one of the last people on earth that a responsible Democrat in the White House would call. And you would be wrong. Really, Mr. President? Have you no pride or sense at all? What a mistake.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. "As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."
While neocons want to somehow take credit for understanding the Middle East, the current conflict is more indicative of the failures of US foreign policy than any successful understanding. Considering that Abrams was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, a signatory of PNAC, and one of the main cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion, you'd think that he would be the one of the last people on earth that a responsible Democrat in the White House would call. And you would be wrong. Really, Mr. President? Have you no pride or sense at all? What a mistake.
Neocons Exploit Fear of Muslim Brotherhood to Push War
Former semi-ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has told Sean Hannity the Egyptian rebellion against the authoritarian dictator Hosni Mubarak should be used as a pretext to bomb Iran.
“Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?” Sean Hannity asked Bolton on his radio program Monday. “”As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they’re going to have to act in fairly short order.”
“I think that’s right,” Bolton said. “I don’t think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up.”
“Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?” Sean Hannity asked Bolton on his radio program Monday. “”As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they’re going to have to act in fairly short order.”
“I think that’s right,” Bolton said. “I don’t think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up.”
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Neocons Attack Egyptian Dissident Mohamed ElBaradei, Again
Over at Firedoglake, Marcy Wheeler has an excellent recap of the past neoconservative smear campaign against ElBaradei. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration pooh-poohed his warning that there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq” and paid no attention to the fact that the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein was pursuing enriched uranium from Niger was based on forged documents, according to IAEA reporting. Despite the fact that almost everything ElBaradei said about Iraq turned out to be correct, the Bush Administration tapped his phone and led a major campaign to prevent him from leading for a third term at IAEA. Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that then–UN Ambassador John Bolton was “going out of his way to bad-mouth” ElBaradei. Nonetheless, ElBaradei was unanimously re-elected as IAEA chief in 2005 and, shortly thereafter, awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his arms control work. “I don’t think we were effective in our campaign to oppose him,” Bolton later admitted.
Nonetheless, the neocons who wildly hyped and distorted military intelligence in Iraq were determined to once again undermine ElBaradei when it came to Iran’s WMD program. “Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran,” Bolton said in 2007. Why did Bolton say this? Because ElBaradei has refused to endorse a US- or Israeli-led attack on Iran, much to the chagrin of neocon war cheerleaders. The former IAEA chief has publicly criticized the Iranian government for not cooperating sufficiently with his agency, but he’s also been careful to note that robust diplomacy is the ultimate solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
Nonetheless, the neocons who wildly hyped and distorted military intelligence in Iraq were determined to once again undermine ElBaradei when it came to Iran’s WMD program. “Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran,” Bolton said in 2007. Why did Bolton say this? Because ElBaradei has refused to endorse a US- or Israeli-led attack on Iran, much to the chagrin of neocon war cheerleaders. The former IAEA chief has publicly criticized the Iranian government for not cooperating sufficiently with his agency, but he’s also been careful to note that robust diplomacy is the ultimate solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Hosni Mubarak Fan Club
If we were living in a rational America, instead of Bizarro America, the US government would have cut off all aid to Egypt days ago – heck, years ago. Unfortunately, we live in a country where the national interests of the American people are routinely ignored in favor of a nation that has spied on us, sold our secrets to our worst enemies, and ruthlessly pursued a policy of expansion – using our tax dollars to do it.
Hosni Mubarak’s American fan club is a coalition of neocons like John Bolton, nutballs, like Pamela Geller, and the Israel-appeasers who inhabit the US national security and diplomatic establishment and don’t dare sneeze without Tel Aviv’s permission. These people are a tiny minority of the US population – the average American, seeing what is going on in Egypt, reflexively supports the Egyptian people. But ordinary Americans don’t control US foreign policy: the Interests do. And one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Interest in the foreign policy realm is Israel’s amen corner in Washington. We’ll have nothing remotely resembling a rational foreign policy until the all-pervasive influence of Israel’s lobby is effectively neutralized. Until then, you can chalk up Uncle Sam as a charter member of the Hosni Mubarak Fan Club – to our everlasting shame.
Hosni Mubarak’s American fan club is a coalition of neocons like John Bolton, nutballs, like Pamela Geller, and the Israel-appeasers who inhabit the US national security and diplomatic establishment and don’t dare sneeze without Tel Aviv’s permission. These people are a tiny minority of the US population – the average American, seeing what is going on in Egypt, reflexively supports the Egyptian people. But ordinary Americans don’t control US foreign policy: the Interests do. And one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Interest in the foreign policy realm is Israel’s amen corner in Washington. We’ll have nothing remotely resembling a rational foreign policy until the all-pervasive influence of Israel’s lobby is effectively neutralized. Until then, you can chalk up Uncle Sam as a charter member of the Hosni Mubarak Fan Club – to our everlasting shame.
The Neocon Take on Egypt
FOX News recently rolled out its expert on “diplomacy,” neocon John Bolton (the guy with the white Hitler mustache) to explain to us Rubes why the U.S. military may have to intervene in Egypt. It would not be in “our” national interest to have a “hostile” government in Egypt, he said.
Thanks, John, for defining for us all what “our” national interest is. We could never have figured it out ourselves. One problem, though: the only explanation that he gave of why it is in MY interest that the U.S. government either keeps its current CIA puppet in power in that country, or replace him with a clone, is that the politicians in Israel would not like it otherwise. He said nothing at all about how an alternative outcome would affect a single American citizen one way or the other, while ludicrously denying that Mubarak, who has been in power for 30 years, is not a dictator. He’s an “authoritarian” but not a “totalitarian,” Bolton soothingly assured us.
While I’m on the topic, why are we all supposed to assume that the Egyptians (and other Arab states) would want to shoot themselves in the foot economically by closing off the Suez Canal and preventing themselves from selling us their oil?
Thanks, John, for defining for us all what “our” national interest is. We could never have figured it out ourselves. One problem, though: the only explanation that he gave of why it is in MY interest that the U.S. government either keeps its current CIA puppet in power in that country, or replace him with a clone, is that the politicians in Israel would not like it otherwise. He said nothing at all about how an alternative outcome would affect a single American citizen one way or the other, while ludicrously denying that Mubarak, who has been in power for 30 years, is not a dictator. He’s an “authoritarian” but not a “totalitarian,” Bolton soothingly assured us.
While I’m on the topic, why are we all supposed to assume that the Egyptians (and other Arab states) would want to shoot themselves in the foot economically by closing off the Suez Canal and preventing themselves from selling us their oil?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)