Kirsten Powers: Americans Should Worry About ‘Islamic Power in Cairo’

posted at 4:15 pm on February 3, 2011 by Matt Lewis

Writing at The Daily Beast, liberal columnist and pundit Kirsten Powers (who has family in Egypt) noted,

I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

That Powers, a proud “progressive,” is writing about this makes it clear that such fears are not merely being propagated by “right wingers.”

Powers’ column also rings true to me.  In fact, I might have been one of the first to sound the warning alarm regarding the danger of Islamists seizing power if Mubarak were ousted.

A week ago at Politics Daily, I noted that “radical Islamist ideology began in Egypt, and this has informed Mubarak’s policies.”

And like Powers, it also occurs to me many Americans have been a bit quixotic regarding what is happening in Cairo.  While I do not believe it would be wise for America to intervene (either for, or against, Mubarak), it is clear that many Americans who are “rooting” for Mubarak’s ouster, naively assume the autocrat would be replaced by pro-democracy forces who — after all — just want freedom and to rid themselves from the shackles of a dictator.

Others have bought into the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood are merely a non-violent charitable organization — sort of like Egypt’s version of the Knights of Columbus (here’s a great column about the Brotherhood).

To a certain degree, the reaction against Mubarak makes perfect sense.  As I write this, Mubarak ‘s goons are violently cracking down on protesters and reporters in Egypt.  He is clearly a villain.  One cannot defend him, and it’s always hard to argue “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.”

But that does not change the fact that it seems likely that if Mubarak goes, his ouster would result in — at best — an Egypt which is much less pro-Israel and much less pro-American.

The other day, I interviewed NBC News’ Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel.  Here’s what he had to say about it:

“This is not an Islamic Revolution,” he cautions. “But if you’re having true Democratic elections and you get a variety of political parties [the Muslim Brotherhood would be] anti-Israel, generally anti-American foreign policy in the Middle East, [and that] would become much more a part of Egyptian foreign policy.”

As we wrestle with the moral and practical implications of all of this, it is interesting to note that this is really not a new dilemma.  Revolutions are always a messy business ...


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

In other words, something similar to Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

MeatHeadinCA

if the MB rule Egypt and use the country as a base from which to launch attacks against us, we’re got cause.

if they’re just real stupid and vicious and don’t like us, that may not be cause for invading them

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:20 PM

maybe there’s a bit of difference between people in a country seeking to throw off a despot in their own country
and
the US invading another nation.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:17 PM

There were certainly Iraqis that wanted to overthrow their despot.

MeatHeadinCA on February 3, 2011 at 11:22 PM

if the MB rule Egypt and use the country as a base from which to launch attacks against us, we’re got cause.

if they’re just real stupid and vicious and don’t like us, that may not be cause for invading them

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:20 PM

True… BTW, I’m not advocating invading Egypt anymore than I would have advocated invading newly birthed Nazi Germany…

MeatHeadinCA on February 3, 2011 at 11:23 PM

There were certainly Iraqis that wanted to overthrow their despot.

MeatHeadinCA

yeah, and one upon a time the elder Bush got a lot of them killed because they misread his words and intentions.

I would have liked for us to have been in a position to aid the Iranian protesters last year, but their was little that we could do for them other than engage in acts of war.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM

yeah, and one upon a time the elder Bush got a lot of them killed because they misread his words and intentions.

I would have liked for us to have been in a position to aid the Iranian protesters last year, but their was little that we could do for them other than engage in acts of war.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Um, OK. But look, the US invasion as it happened still helped a lot of Iraqis throw out their despot.

I have to wonder if in Iraq it would have been possible to have an Egyptian style revolution…

MeatHeadinCA on February 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I have to wonder if in Iraq it would have been possible to have an Egyptian style revolution…

MeatHeadinCA

not likely.
they would have been gunned down if not rounded up beforehand.

there was a town in Syria called Hama in 1982. it experienced a population decline.

the Iraqi Kurds had somewhat similar experiences in 88

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM

not likely.
they would have been gunned down if not rounded up beforehand.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM

OK, then…

MeatHeadinCA on February 3, 2011 at 11:49 PM

What good is a Kirsten Powers blog without a video? If she is not looking good, she’s as useful to me as a bag of rocks to me.

swamp_yankee on February 3, 2011 at 11:53 PM

It’s not like Mubarak was going to live forever. He’s 82. And whoever has been running things for the past few years has gotten more repressive not less.

At some point in the near future Mubarak was going. And it was never likely we were going to be asked to choose their new ruler. It’d be nice but…

Obama didn’t make things any worse, I don’t think. And that is the best I can say. He does not instill confidence.

If this turns out well… I guess it will be divine intervention. Because nobody on Earth right now has the answers. Everybody is running around like headless chickens.

And by the way I don’t think Beck is helping. We all pretty much knew about the Caliphate and the 12th Imam and all that… that’s old news. That’s been the plan for at least 100 years. And seeing it in black and white while this is going on doesn’t change a thing. It just ramps up the stress level.

It’s just a coincidence that Beck’s schedule and the Egyptian protests happened at the same time and I think some people are more worried than is helpful.

Our ability to choose who leads Egypt are very limited. And I’m certain even Obama would not pick the MB on purpose.

petunia on February 3, 2011 at 11:55 PM

At some point in the near future Mubarak was going.

but not without leaving a replacement Mubarak behind.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Are you having a duh day? They would have gotten rid of an Islamic theocracy.

Basilsbest

And replaced it with another. The uprising in Iran had nothing to do with embracing democratic principles, or becoming pro-America, or being less radical. They simply wanted the radical they voted for instead of the one they didn’t.

Can we at least agree that Iran needs change? If we can’t, then let’s just stop here and agree that we agree on absolutely nothing politically.

Esthier

Sounds just like the kind of thing the democrats were saying when they passed Obamacare. Iran needs the right change, not change for changes sake. That’s how they got to where they are now.

xblade on February 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM

yeah, and one upon a time the elder Bush got a lot of them killed because they misread his words and intentions.

audiculous

If they misread his words, they got themselves killed. If people choose to hear what they want to hear, that’s on them.

xblade on February 4, 2011 at 12:25 AM

And replaced it with another. The uprising in Iran had nothing to do with embracing democratic principles, or becoming pro-America, or being less radical. They simply wanted the radical they voted for instead of the one they didn’t.
xblade

kinda odd to say that wanting to have their votes counted honestly and having the person that actually won instilled in office had nothing to do with embracing democratic principles.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:25 AM

If they misread his words, they got themselves killed. If people choose to hear what they want to hear, that’s on them.

xblade

Many people understood Bush to be calling for Saddam to be ousted by the Iraqi people.

Having seemed to settle on limited aims, Bush casually expanded them, enjoining Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam. His actual words were not stirring—“In my own view, I’ve always said it would be—that the Iraqi people should put him aside and that would facilitate the resolution of all these problems that exist, and would certainly facilitate the acceptance of Iraq back into the family of peace-loving nations”—but they sufficed to trigger an uprising…

Geoffrey Wawro

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:35 AM

might be wrong but perhaps the Egyptian own Egypt and the

US didn’t own Iraq.

maybe there’s a bit of difference between people in a country seeking to throw off a despot in their own country
and
the US invading another nation.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:17 PM

The Iraqis didn’t want to throw off Saddam? Really? They seemed pretty happy to hang him when the time came.

Or were they just not capable of it without outside intervention, because Saddam was a much more terrifying and efficient tyrant, with a security apparatus that the Iraqi people themselves had no chance of defeating.

Anybody with an ounce of reason would know the answer to that question.

Then the lesson for Mubarak would seem to be that he was not cruel enough, that he was not autocratic enough, that he was too reluctant to rely on extensive terror, the way that Saddam did.

Oh, and also, that he was too friendly with the US.

Because if he was a crueler, more anti-American despot, then all the Audiculous types in the world would automatically become much more sympathetic and see any outside intervention to remove him as a “war of aggression”.

Dreadnought on February 4, 2011 at 12:51 AM

It’s definitely 1979 redux, with a few details changed. But back then the media and liberals assured us the Iranian protesters weren’t radicals, that there were middle class people and secular students marching in Teheran, too. And there were, of course – but the islamists meant business and were absolutely ruthless. Just ask the non-fanatics like Barzagan, the moderate MPRP, Banisadr, or even the islamist MEK, the National Front, or the Freedom Movement of Iran how it was being a coalition partner of Khomeini’s Islamic Republic Party.

Yeah, they were all just democracy lovers yearning for freedom in 1978-79, to hear the media and the spineless American left tell it. How is it working out, by the way?

Adjoran on February 4, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Because if he was a crueler, more anti-American despot, then all the Audiculous types in the world would automatically become much more sympathetic and see any outside intervention to remove him as a “war of aggression”.

Dreadnought

you’re not too good at reasoning. wanting the sonofabich dead and being glad that he is, doesn’t change the fact that it we invaded Iraq and it was not our right to do it.

I don’t miss him, and, to repeat, you’re not too good at reasoning.

try being the strong silent type.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Yeah, they were all just democracy lovers yearning for freedom in 1978-79, to hear the media and the spineless American left tell it.

that’s pretty damn untrue, but I doubt that you care.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:15 AM

CONTENT WARNING!

Video: Egyptian Revolution – The diplomatic car that ran over 20 people in Cairo

The moment of impact is just… sickening.

As for Egypt as a whole… it’s starting to feel like Iran 1979 all over again.

Yakko77 on February 4, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Good article but nothing really new for people really following the spread of evil islam and jihad. Author gives himself way too much credit for things many of us have known for a while. Still Obama would be wise to read this piece seeing as how he has no clue whatsoever about events in Egypt. His ignorance is dangerous and terrifying.

Sherman1864 on February 4, 2011 at 4:59 AM

you’re not too good at reasoning. wanting the sonofabich dead and being glad that he is, doesn’t change the fact that it we invaded Iraq and it was not our right to do it.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM

You say we ‘had no right’, I say we did. And, since Congress gave the President the authority to invade, I have more proof I’m correct than you do.

So go away and have a wiener-fest with other like-minded critters and we’ll all be happier.

Squiggy on February 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM

This NEVER would have happened if Muzzie Bro in Chief had supported the freedom-loving protesters in Iran.

The Muzzie Bros in the M.E. saw that Barry would do NOTHING if they started overthrowing various governments who happened to somewhat support the US.

THey were right.

stenwin77 on February 4, 2011 at 6:33 AM

yeah, and one upon a time the elder Bush got a lot of them killed because they misread his words and intentions.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM

The propagandist is working hard today.

fossten on February 4, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Because if he was a crueler, more anti-American despot, then all the Audiculous types in the world would automatically become much more sympathetic and see any outside intervention to remove him as a “war of aggression”.

Dreadnought
you’re not too good at reasoning. wanting the sonofabich dead and being glad that he is, doesn’t change the fact that it we invaded Iraq and it was not our right to do it.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Then he never goes. So again the lesson is-just be a nastier dictator about supressing the opposition and you are guaranteed never to have to worry about being overthrown. Right?

Dreadnought on February 4, 2011 at 7:51 AM

After Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009 Frank Gaffney wrote his interpretation of the words used in that speech. Here is a link to Mr. Gaffney’s observations at Atlas Shrugs.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obamas-muslim-speech-revealed.html

A very interesting passage comes at the end of Mr. Gaffney’s observations. “The Speech contained a number of statements about the laudable qualities of America, the need for freedom in the Muslim world, about women’s rights and the desirability of peace. But its preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood’s agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West’s submission to it.”

lyfsatrip on February 4, 2011 at 9:22 AM

The muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organization – what happened to the war on terror ???

LODGE4 on February 4, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Worth a read: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/04/obama-vs-mubarak/print/

onlineanalyst on February 4, 2011 at 10:15 AM

LODGE4 on February 4, 2011 at 9:28 AM

It ended in January of 2009.

Cindy Munford on February 4, 2011 at 10:56 AM

If Kirsten strayed far enough away from the official line of Obummer then we should be very, very afraid. My fear is war sooner or later.

Herb on February 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM

The muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organization – what happened to the war on terror ???

LODGE4

I was wondering much the same thing, then I try finding out if the Brotherhood was listed by our govt as a terrorist group. As of 5 years ago, it seems that they’re not.

My info is sketchy. If you know that they’ve hit our terrorist list either before or since then, please let us know.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:30 AM

hen he never goes. So again the lesson is-just be a nastier dictator about supressing the opposition and you are guaranteed never to have to worry about being overthrown. Right?

Dreadnought

how do most dictators end up?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM

You say we ‘had no right’, I say we did. And, since Congress gave the President the authority to invade, I have more proof I’m correct than you do.

So go away and have a wiener-fest with other like-minded critters and we’ll all be happier.

Squiggy

your happiness is all I crave. it’s even more dear than a wiener-fest.

I read somewhere that if you use deceit in order to get people to allow you to do something, it can be considered that you have engaged in a fraud.

and that hadn’t a right to either use that method to obtain approval or the right to use that approval for anything.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:36 AM

As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women.

This is the crucial quote from Kirsten Powers’ column, which was unfortunately not quoted by Matt Lewis. As a woman with a Christian family in Egypt, Powers does not want her family or other women or minorities to be oppressed, and she rightly fears that the Muslim Brotherhood would be more oppressive than Mubarak.

Obama has made some vague statements about being in support of “the Egyptian people”, but which Egyptian people? The Muslim Brotherhood, by definition, is for men only–but what about Egyptian women–what do THEY want? What about non-Muslim Egyptian men? Do we want women and non-Muslim men in Egypt (who would together form a majority of Egyptian adults) oppressed by a minority of men?

Kirsten Powers’ column is important to this debate–that there are good reasons why liberals and women, including one who knows something about Egypt, should fear a takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, and calling for Mubarak’s resignation without considering the alternative is extremely naive.

It may not be possible for the United States to prevent Egypt from falling into chaos, since we have no military presence there. But Mubarak, despite his faults, has respected the peace treaty with Israel for 30 years, and has been an “ally at arm’s length” of the United States, either supporting U.S. foreign policy or remaining neutral, and it seems like the Egyptian military is not hostile to the United States.

Instead of publicly calling for Mubarak to step down while having no control over the situation, it would be far wiser for the U.S. Government to work diplomatically with Mubarak and the Egyptian military, and possibly with Israeli forces, to prepare a transition to a caretaker government supported by the Egyptian military, which could restore order until an West-friendly opposition group can be organized (which does not support Sharia law) that could win the support of a majority of the Egyptian people. Not a perfect solution, but far better than letting Egypt 2011 become another Iran 1979.

Steve Z on February 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Not a perfect solution, but far better than letting Egypt 2011 become another Iran 1979.

Steve Z on February 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

-
To Obama the bold things is a goal… Part of the longer term ‘Dream of his Father’.
-

RalphyBoy on February 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Anyone with any sense & knowledge of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood should wish Mubarak or at least the military to stay in power until enough time for (non- Islamist) political parties to organize for elections. But no moderate posturing by the MB should be trusted – IMO it would be better for the West if this pernicious Islamic group were arrested. Unfortunately I’m afraid our anti-Israel Muslim president would like to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.

I trust the top Egyptian military brass will ignore our Obamanation and do what’s necessary to keep their heads attached and the Islamists out of power. Meanwhile let’s work to get rid of our Obamanation next year.

Chessplayer on February 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM

. But no moderate posturing by the MB should be trusted – IMO it would be better for the West if this pernicious Islamic group were arrested.

Chessplayer

arrest an entire group?
on what charge?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Sounds just like the kind of thing the democrats were saying when they passed Obamacare. Iran needs the right change, not change for changes sake. That’s how they got to where they are now.

xblade on February 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM

And the Democrats weren’t completely wrong. If they hadn’t passed ObamaCare would the Republicans be looking to improve things still? Maybe, but they had time when they were in charge and did nothing. Now they’re looking to improve health care with meaningful changes and balance the budget.

So the whole “that’s what a Democrat would say” doesn’t really bother me here.

kinda odd to say that wanting to have their votes counted honestly and having the person that actually won instilled in office had nothing to do with embracing democratic principles.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Of course. If all they wanted was a radical, they wouldn’t have bothered with an election. They expected their vote to mean something and reacted when they realized it didn’t.

Heck that even seems more democracy minded than a concern over taxation.

Esthier on February 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Kirsten’s been hanging around the FNN Conservatives too long,,,either that, or it may be that even Liberals can break down in the face of overwhelming evidence and admit that radical Muslims are potentially dangerous.

Of course, if things do magically quiet down over there, Ms. Powers and others of her political persuasion will once again be defending Muslim extremists (as being; not that great in number-a small minority if you will; not really killing all that many people; killing less innocent people than the U.S. military is; they’re justified and so on) and downplaying and obscuring their crimes against Humanity.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 4, 2011 at 5:30 PM

. But no moderate posturing by the MB should be trusted – IMO it would be better for the West if this pernicious Islamic group were arrested.

Chessplayer

arrest an entire group?
on what charge?

Arrest in Egypt, at least the leadership. I understand they are an illegal organization in Egypt.

Chessplayer on February 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM

I understand they are an illegal organization in Egypt.

Chessplayer

beyond the questionable use of law in Egypt in the regard of banning political activity not affiliated with Mubarak, there’s the question of whether the members of the MB that are currently serving in Egypt’s Parliament should be jailed.

Who would arrest a substantial bloc in the legislature as a means of insuring democracy and security for the interest of the West?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 6:53 PM

I think Daniel Pipes has it right:

First, democracy is more than holding elections; it requires the development of civil society, meaning such complex and counterintuitive institutions as the rule of law, an independent judiciary, multiple political parties, minority rights, voluntary associations, freedom of expression, movement, and assembly. Democracy is a learned habit, not an instinctive one, that requires deep attitudinal changes such as a culture of restraint, a commonality of values, a respect for differences of view, the concept of loyal opposition, and a sense of civic responsibility.

Further, elections need to be practiced to be made perfect. Ideally, a country starts electing at the municipal level and moves to the national, it begins with the legislative branch and moves to the executive. Simultaneously, the press needs to acquire full freedoms, political parties should mature, parliament should gain authority at the expense of the executive, and judges should adjudicate between them.

Such a transformation of society cannot take place within months or even years; the historical record shows that it takes decades fully to implement. It is out of the question that an Egypt with minor experience in democracy can put together enough of these components in twelve months to establish a fully democratic order.

Second, whichever scenario one plays out, democracy is not in the offing.

If Hosni Mubarak stays in power, unlikely but possible, he will be more of a tyrant than ever. As shown by his actions in recent days, he will not go quietly.

If the military asserts more directly the power that it has wielded behind the scenes since its coup d’état of 1952, Omar Suleiman, the newly-appointed vice president, would presumably become president. He would make changes to the system, eliminating the most obvious abuses under Mubarak, but not fundamentally offering Egyptians a say in the regime that rules them. Algeria 1992, where a military-backed government repressed Islamists, provides a precedent.

If Islamists come to power, they will foment a revolution along the lines of Iran in 1979, in which their belief in God’s sovereignty trumps political participation by the masses. The inherently anti-democratic nature of the Islamist movement must not be obscured by the Islamists’ willingness to use elections to reach power. In the prescient words of an American official in 1992, the Islamists forward a program of “one person, one vote, one time.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/9420/democratic-egypt

My guess is that the military asserting power option will occur and is IMO the lesser by far of evils. Better it be something like Algeria of 1992.

Chessplayer on February 4, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Chessplayer

don’t take this personally, but Daniel Pipes opinions of Arab intentions are about as valuable and objective as Mel Gibson’s opinions about Jews.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 8:42 PM

don’t take this personally, but Daniel Pipes opinions of Arab intentions are about as valuable and objective as Mel Gibson’s opinions about Jews.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 8:42 PM

And we can take your word as bond on all issues touched upon.

Inanemergencydial on February 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM

And we can take your word as bond on all issues touched upon.

Inanemergencydial

..well, not all issues.

you can’t go wrong with agreeing with Mel Gibson/Daniel Pipes. they know….secrets handed down from father to son.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 10:48 PM

And we can take your word as bond on all issues touched upon.

Inanemergencydial

maybe not quite all…..

I thought that the new congress wouldn’t be able to repeal the healthcare bills that the last congress enacted.

and I also thought that there’s a fair chance that the Supreme Court is gonna have some trouble finding that it’s all Constitutional…..

then I read something about Scalia having written an opinion based on a really broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and now I’m doubting myself.

If Scalia isn’t gonna be trying to knock some holes, it’s may all stand.

audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 12:20 AM

I would have liked for us to have been in a position to aid the Iranian protesters last year, but their was little that we could do for them other than engage in acts of war.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM

We could have had a president that condemed the election as a fraud, upheld the rule of law, and put the dictatorship in a position that prevented the heavy hand persecusion against the leaders of the protest that followed. Instead we have a president that stood in the wings, watching and learning from how the current government stole the election and dealt with the opposition, then declared the Islamic government legitimate.

We are seeing the same thing repeating in Eygpt where he stands in the wings, watching and learning, and once again on the side of radical Islamic factions. He justifies his betrayal of an Ally as the better position for our country with no concern of the message that sends to other allies, escically Israel.

Obama’s denialbilty of foreknowledge became important as the lack of support of an ally and Obama’s declaration of support for the oppossion was declared. He has claimed that his intel did not inform him until it was happening. The CIA says that they informed him 2010. Maybe they did but he was too busy campaigning and planning his Asian vacation trip. His Intel would be his white house advisors. With that consideration, they may have thought it was not relevent or important. Obama may not have known because he does not do anything with the “hard stuff” they put on his desk. He has staff to handle that. He probably thought it was for the photo ops.

More seriously, when Soros announce the need to remove Israel to achieve peace in the Middle East, that put Obama in the postion of betraying yet another ally and all in the name of Islam.

Franklyn on February 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM

More seriously, when Soros announce the need to remove Israel to achieve peace in the Middle East, that put Obama in the postion of betraying yet another ally and all in the name of Islam.

Franklyn

I missed that announcement. when was it?

audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM

More seriously, when Soros announce the need to remove Israel to achieve peace in the Middle East, that put Obama in the postion of betraying yet another ally and all in the name of Islam.

Franklyn

I missed that announcement. when was it?

audiculous on February 5, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I cannot believe that Kristen got it right; a first for her.

proconstitution on February 5, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3