Karma
I recently stated that Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as a "moderate" organization, but was told by one reader (Kane in Arizona) that he could not find any evidence to verify this claim.
Upon looking into it, myself, I cannot either. Apparently, I made a mistake and am willing to own up to it. In truth, I was probably thinking of Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who foolishly said that the Muslim Brotherhood was "secular."
The context of the discussion was whether or not the Obama administration is validating and bolstering that organization and the political movement of which it is the foremost expression, i.e., Radical Islam.
The fact of the matter, as anyone who is paying attention knows, the Obama administration is validating and bolstering the Muslim Brotherhood, both directly and through validating political Islam, more generally, as the outcome of Arab democracy and, thus, intrinsically worthy of support... which, of course, it is no such thing.
Nonetheless, Mr. Holder apparently never said what I thought that he had.
.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (mike.lumish@gmail.com)
It is good to admit a mistake. Some do not have that capacity, though I will not mention any names.
ReplyDeleteI guess the question that counts is whether or not the Obama administration is, or is not, bolstering political Islam?
ReplyDeleteI suppose that this is an argument that can be made either way, but it cannot be a question that is simply dismissed.
Help us explore it over time, if you will.
You're right, it is not a question that can or should be dismissed. I think the rise in popularity of political Islam is a function of the rise in the number of people supporting political Islam. Just a guess, but I'm thinking that most of those people would be Muslim.
ReplyDeleteObama is dealing with political realities in a complicated world. He has to deal with political Islam the same way that Israel has to deal with political Islam. Neither have been supportive. Ever. Israel can't stop it. Neither can the US.
If you can provide some actions that the US could have taken and didn't, that would have stopped what happened in Egypt, I'd love to hear them.
The analogy I keep thinking of regarding US action in Egypt is like a football fan screaming for the coach of his 0-16 team to be fired. And the coach gets fired. And the new coach sucks even more than the old coach. And now you blame the guy who wanted the old coach gone for the faults of the new guy. The people of Egypt picked the new coach. Not Obama. I'm reasonably sure he wasn't consulted.
Let's not forget that as early as 2009 Obama INSISTED that at least 10 of the Muslim Brotherhood attend his Cairo speech.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/06/-brotherhood-invited-to-obama-speech-by-us/18693/
It's one thing to say that Obama is continuing a line of bipartisan
ReplyDeleteAmerican policy toward Israel.
It's another to claim that no other President has ever been as good a friend to Israel.
Is Egypt the sole test? What about the abandonment of the Iranians, the questionable expansion of the mission in Libya and support of unknown entities, the unprecedented partnership with the OIC as it tries to criminalize expression, and having Yusuf al-Qaradawi serve as mediator with the Taliban?
Yes, people should not unduly criticize. Nor should they unduly idolize, which also occurs. And when there is criticism, it does not mean that one is a right wing Islamophobe, as is too often asserted.
Kane,
ReplyDeletethe question is whether or not the Obama administration is, or is not, bolstering political Islam?
That's the question and there is no doubt that the answer to that question is "yes."
How many times must we post direct quotations from either Obama, himself, or his highest officers for this point to be driven home?
I guess what I really do not understand is why so many liberal Jews absolutely refuse to see what is directly before our eyes?
I also do not understand why Obama's obviously failure to even speak against political Islam does not constitute acceptance of an anti-Semitic, genocidal movement?
So, in truth, what I mainly fail to understand is why it is that intelligent Jewish liberals absolutely refuse to stand up for the Jewish people, given the fact that our numbers are so small and our Radical Jihadi enemies so violently murderous?
How many clips of Muslim or Arab or Palestinian clerics screaming for Jewish blood must we see before we begin to take this seriously?
The truth, of course, is that the progressive-left has betrayed its Jewish constituency through accepting anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as a part of the overall coalition.
That's a cold fact, my friend.
What saddens me more is that progressive Jews can live with it.
I understand that you believe the answer to your first question is yes. I've seen no evidence of it. I've seen him show tacit support for Mubarek stepping down. I'm reasonably sure he's expressed a desire for democratic elections.
ReplyDeleteBut explicit support for the Muslim Brotherhood? I haven't seen that. I don't see opening lines of communication as support for anything other than political realities.
I don't think you're actually arguing that Obama favors an Egyptian government controlled by political Islam over a secular government. I think you're arguing that he could have taken some action that would have changed history, and kept the Muslim Brotherhood from power. And that inaction, whether by ingorance or malevolence, has manifested itself as defacto support for what actually ocurred. I reject that notion.
As I mentioned before, he insisted that 10 MB members attend his Cairo speech. IOW, he legitimized a hitherto delegitimized genocidal organization. He might as well have said to Mubarak, "Get me 10 Nazis up here so I can appear even-handed."
ReplyDeleteStupid at best. I suggest that move helped with the changing history of that region and he should not have ever done it.
Nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThis administration told the world, as I linked to time and again, that the Islamist Spring is the equivalent of the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s.
Heck, he may even have believed it at the time, but if he has changed his mind he has given no indication of it.
Whatever Obama's intent, whatever he thought he was doing, what he actually ended up doing is cheer-leading for the Jihad.
But, then again, the progressive-left has been cheer-leading for the Jihad from the moment that one of them uttered the words "Arab spring."
You mean the Arab spring don't you? Framing again.
ReplyDeleteWords are important. The article you link to says " insisted that at least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's chief opposition party, be allowed to attend his speech". You may see no distinction between what he said and insisting that 10 attend. I do. And I find the context in the linked article meaningful.
ReplyDeleteExactly how did it change history? I think you overestimate the influence of an American president on the Egyptian voters.
Do you believe that Obama should have supported Mubarek staying in control in Egypt? That would not have ended well.
Why in this world we you frame the rise of political Islam as the "Arab Spring"?
ReplyDeleteYes, framing is important, but it is also important that this framing be accurate.
"Arab Spring" is not accurate.
"Islamist Spring" or even "Islamist Winter" is considerably more accurate... unless you actually favor the rise of the Jihad, which I am sure that you don't.