Inevitable: Muslim Brotherhood at the White House this week for talks on Egypt; Update: Salafist presidential candidate disqualified?

posted at 9:45 pm on April 4, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’d love to toss rhetorical grenades at the Democrats for this but a Republican White House will have no choice but to gladhand the MB too. Behold the new normal:

The meeting on Tuesday with low-level National Security Council staff was part of a series of US efforts to broaden engagement with new and emerging political parties following Egypt’s revolution last year, a US official said.

The White House pointed out that Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and other US lawmakers and officials had also met with Brotherhood representatives in Egypt and elsewhere in recent months.

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

I can’t find the passage but I remember writing way back when that the surprisingly strong showing by the Salafists in Egypt’s parliamentary elections was going to end up replicating the Mubarak dynamic in U.S./Egyptian relations. For 30 years, we propped up Mubarak for fear of what the Brotherhood might do if it seized power. For the next 30, it looks like we’ll be propping up the Brotherhood for fear of what the Salafists might do if they seize power. Lord only knows what even nuttier group of nuts is set to emerge as the even more fanatic alternative to the Salafists in case they win parliament. That’s Middle East “stability” in a nutshell: You might as well make nice with the cretin in charge since there’s bound to be some worse cretin angling for his job.

The job in this case is the Egyptian presidency:

Hazem Salah Abu Ismail is an old-school Islamist.

He wants to move toward abolishing Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel and cites Iran as a successful model of independence from Washington. He worries about the mixing of the genders in the workplace and women’s work outside the home. And he promises to bring extraordinary prosperity to Egypt, if it turns its back on trade with the West…

The Brotherhood, which leads Parliament, had pledged not to seek the presidency for fear of provoking a backlash from the Egyptian military and the West. But Mr. Abu Ismail’s surge raises the prospect that the winner might not be a more secular or liberal figure, but a strident Islamist who opposes the Brotherhood’s pragmatic focus on stable relations with the United States and Israel and free-market economics.

Mr. Abu Ismail poses a subtler threat, too, challenging the Brotherhood’s status as the main voice of Islamist politics in Egypt and threatening to undermine its campaign to set aside Western fears of political Islam.

If Ismail wins he could become an Egyptian Ahmadinejad, relentlessly demagoging the U.S. and Israel and tilting Egyptian politics towards Salafist-style fundamentalism. Result: The U.S. is kinda sorta supporting the Brotherhood’s candidate, Khairat al-Shater, whom the Times claims is in “regular contact” with the U.S. ambassador to Egypt. Problem is, his candidacy will create problems for the MB no matter how it turns out. If he loses to Ismail, it’s a humiliation and the best evidence yet that the Brotherhood won’t be able to triangulate between the west and Islamic fundies as easily as it might have hoped. If he wins, suddenly the MB has total control of Egypt’s elected offices, which means total responsibility for turning the country’s economy around. If they fail, and they almost certainly will given the country’s institutional problems, that could lead to a bigger Salafist surge down the line when voters toss them out. Tony Karon adds another wrinkle:

Many in Egypt saw the Brotherhood’s decision as a panicky response to fears that the generals might use the election as an opportunity to put one over their most powerful challenger — rumors have abounded lately in Cairo about the possibility of a presidential run by Omar Suleiman, Mubarak’s former intelligence chief and figurative “Hand of the King.” Alternately, the generals could throw the military’s not inconsiderable weight behind a more popular nationalist candidate such as Moussa…

A case could be made that forcing the Brotherhood to take responsibility for governance would have a sobering and moderating effect, reinforcing its move towards the political center — as opposed to having the hedge available if it remains the largest party but declines to accept executive power. That’s cold comfort to the movement’s critics, however, who fear the concentration of power in its hands will allow the Brotherhood to impose a more socially conservative and sectarian vision on Egypt. Coptic Christians recently withdrew from Constitutional Assembly, following liberal groups that had already done so, to protest the Brotherhood’s heavy-handed domination of that body.

I wonder, actually, if the ruling military junta wouldn’t prefer to see Ismail and the Salafists win since that’ll give them a handier pretext to revert to a true Mubarak dynamic by deposing him later and ruling indefinitely. The west might object if they pulled that on the Brotherhood since no one’s quite sure yet what sort of relations the MB will pursue with its neighbors. If it maintains a cold peace with Israel and follows Erdogan’s Islamist lead in working with the U.S., the White House may calculate that it’s worth having them in power as an example to Islamists elsewhere that they too can be accepted internationally if they play nice with others. But if the Salafists win and start pounding the table for war with Israel, everyone will panic and look the other way as the army does what it needs to do to neutralize them. Assuming, after months of bitter opposition from the Egyptian public, that it’s still capable of doing it.

Read Marc Lynch’s piece at Foreign Policy for more detail on Shater’s role in the Brotherhood and how damaging a loss would be to the group’s air of invincibility. If you’re wondering what they were talking about with the White House, wonder no further. Exit quotation: “There can be no doubting that with Shater, the Brotherhood has gone all-in for victory. And that in turn puts the organization’s reputation very much on the line, win or lose.”

Update: Oh, the irony. So sweet. So syrupy sweet:

An ultraconservative Islamist whose denunciations of American power have helped propel him to the front of Egypt’s presidential race appears to have been tripped up by his own American connections.

The mother of the candidate, Sheik Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, became an American citizen before she died, according to California public records and a Los Angeles voter registration Web site. That would disqualify Mr. Abu Ismail from running for president under current Egyptian law. And his exit would again scramble the race to become Egypt’s first president since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and to potentially set the template for the government of a major Arab state.

New dilemma for the U.S.: Are we still on board with the Brotherhood’s candidate if the Salafist menace has suddenly been neutralized on a technicality?


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

AM YISRAEL CHAI, MoFos!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 4, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Wait until after the election when JugEars has more flexibility!

KOOLAID2 on April 4, 2012 at 9:49 PM

KeninCT—-is that your boyfriend in the pic?

arnold ziffel on April 4, 2012 at 9:49 PM

“The new normal,” my ass!! This will NEVER be normal.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Getting ready to bow in one, two, three . . .

Scotsman on April 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

What? No state dinner?

sbvft contributor on April 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Glenn Beck is right yet again. The MB is taking over Egypt and making their way into other countries.

NickDeringer on April 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. That they are at the White House speaks loads about what this administration’s views are. Obama openly admitted if there were a conflict he would side with the Muslims. I assume that is against us. This guy either thinks he can do what ever he wants to and still get reelected or he is a lot less intelligent than his supporters think he is.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM

If Ismail wins he could become an Egyptian Ahmadinejad, relentlessly demagoging the U.S. and Israel and tilting Egyptian politics towards Salafist-style fundamentalism.

Ismail says, “How you like me now?”

Obama asks, “How you like your bow?”

ted c on April 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Obama is a miserable excuse for a President of the United States.

crosspatch on April 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Getting ready to bow in one, two, three . . .

Scotsman on April 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I won’t bow-but I’ll ‘wave’.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I’ll say it again: Am Yisrael Chai!
$uck Egypt!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

“Do you miss me yet?”?……………

………………………………….Hosni Mubarak

JPeterman on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Lord only knows what even nuttier group of nuts is set to emerge as the even more fanatic alternative to the Salafists in case they win parliament.

That would be the Progressives.

SlaveDog on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I’d love to toss rhetorical grenades at the Democrats for this but…

Then I will.

Mubarak was pro-US, pro-West, & tolerated Israel.
Mubarak allowed the opposition to protest unhindered & unmolested.
But Obama called for Mubarak’s ouster as soon as there was protest.
Why?
So there would be anti-US thugs in power in Egypt.

Syria is anti-US, anti-West, & want Israel annihilated.
Syria has been butchering protesters for more than a year.
Obama waited until recently to call for his ouster.
Why?
There are already anti-US thugs in power in Syria.

Obama wants our friends weakened & our enemies strengthened.

itsnotaboutme on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Obama is a miserable excuse for a President of the United States.

crosspatch on April 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM

You give him too much credit..

Electrongod on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Dollars to donuts this meeting won’t be tense like his meeting with Israel’s leaders.

SouthernGent on April 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Obama wants our friends weakened & our enemies strengthened.

Which is why Medvedev, Putin, & Pravda all endorse Obama/Biden ’12.

itsnotaboutme on April 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Meh… let Mossad and the IDF deal with it.

Punchenko on April 4, 2012 at 9:56 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision…

Very true.

…and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Wrong.

itsnotaboutme on April 4, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Whoa.A Christian/Jew hating misogynistic terrorist (Hamas is a branch) is treated like a hero. One can smell the antisemitism.

pat on April 4, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

No, it doesn’t.

SlaveDog on April 4, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Is that Mika, I hear…Man, she keeps on popping up during these threads, it’s almost like a trend or something.

/Obama: Worst foreign policy President in the history of the known universe.

Lance Murdock on April 4, 2012 at 9:58 PM

“Do you miss me yet?”?……………

………………………………….Hosni Mubarak

JPeterman on April 4, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Mubarak was pro-US, pro-West, & tolerated Israel.
Mubarak allowed the opposition to protest unhindered & unmolested.
But Obama called for Mubarak’s ouster as soon as there was protest.
Why?
So there would be anti-US thugs in power in Egypt.

itsnotaboutme on April 4, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Dollars to donuts this meeting won’t be tense like his meeting with Israel’s leaders.

SouthernGent on April 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM

My thoughts as well. I’ll bet dollars to donuts, the bruthahoooood didn’t have to go in the back/side door and not get any specially prepared halal food….. hmmmmmmmm, ya think?

sicoit on April 4, 2012 at 9:59 PM

BHO: My brothers…

d1carter on April 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM

If I were Pres I’d say, “He gets to visit, but they have to bring him in through the back by the garbage.”

OkieDoc on April 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM

…a Republican White House will have no choice but to gladhand the MB too.

No.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 10:02 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Do you eat cat shit before you post? Because you always smell.

arnold ziffel on April 4, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Schmucks.

kingsjester on April 4, 2012 at 10:03 PM

arnold ziffel on April 4, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Careful there piggy, there has been some housekeeping going on around these parts.

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM

HOW IN THE HELL DID WE GET TO THIS POINT? Inexcusable. Wake me when this is over.

mimi1220 on April 4, 2012 at 10:07 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

The American people elected the 111 Congress…
“”No one should tell that who they should elect..”

But it was the people’s decision to boot them out in 2010…

Will this be allowed to happen in Egypt?

Democracy…time will tell.

Electrongod on April 4, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Thank goodness.

kingsjester on April 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM

I’m sure the MB will be welcomed with open arms by the Obowma regime. No problem.

It’s the Joooos and the Dalai Lama who get the bum’s rush from Barry.

Philly on April 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM

HOW IN THE HELL DID WE GET TO THIS POINT? Inexcusable. Wake me when this is over.

mimi1220 on April 4, 2012 at 10:07 PM

DON’T GO TO SLEEP!!!

We need you…

Sorry for yelling.

Electrongod on April 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM

…not to mention the American people.

Philly on April 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Glenn Beck is right yet again. The MB is taking over Egypt and making their way into other countries.

NickDeringer on April 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Yes, but he won’t get the credit he deserves.

jan3 on April 4, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 10:06 PM

You are right kind sir. However, it is tedious when trolls can light a stink bomb, and slither off to watch the reaction from afar. She adds nothing to the discussion, chooses not to back up an assertion. Unfortunately, to my discredit I jump at the bait. :(

arnold ziffel on April 4, 2012 at 10:12 PM

New dilemma for the U.S.: Are we still on board with the Brotherhood’s candidate if the Salafist menace has suddenly been neutralized on a technicality?

Are we sure that law will be upheld?

JPeterman on April 4, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Are any of these guys on the no-fly list?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Maybe Obummer will tell the MB envoys stories of his time in madrassa.

Philly on April 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

A case could be made that forcing the Brotherhood to take responsibility for governance would have a sobering and moderating effect, reinforcing its move towards the political center — as opposed to having the hedge available if it remains the largest party but declines to accept executive power.

That would be nice, but history indicates that sudden and absolute power is not a moderating force for theocrats.

Lawdawg86 on April 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

The upside of the downside? “strategic blunder” I tend to thinks so. I hope to be wrong. MB is not a trustworthy player. The alternative is slightly worse if I understand the dynamic at play correctly. Risky business. The problem with Democracy in totalitarian Nations continues to plague our FP. Add to that the 4 to 8 year switch and its double difficult to manage a consistant path.

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 10:18 PM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

…go over there with your full diaper on your head, and give them a little respect for a week or two!

KOOLAID2 on April 4, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Are any of these guys on the no-fly list?

Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

+100

Philly on April 4, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I’d love to toss rhetorical grenades at the Democrats for this but a Republican White House will have no choice but to gladhand the MB too.

Hey, wait a second AP! It wasn’t a Republican president who rushed out in front of the cameras and demanded that Mubarak step down, basically paving the way for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists to come to power. And there were a lot of people on the right warning against that too.

Mubarak sucked, but the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed in Egypt a year and a half ago and now they run the place. You should read Ed Koch’s column from today. Obama demanded he step down knowing full well that the Muslim Brotherhood was best positioned to assume power.

If, like Iran, the population is more moderate than the regime then regime change is a great policy. If, like Egypt, the population is more radical than the regime then you have to really think hard about demanding regime change.

So sorry, AP, I’m laying this one at the feet of Obama.

JohnInCA on April 4, 2012 at 10:18 PM

arnold ziffel on April 4, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I had hoped her to be in the club, I see she is not. Well can’t do all the housekeeping in one day. Kinda like Egypt? ; )

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The mother of the candidate, Sheik Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, became an American citizen before she died, according to California public records and a Los Angeles voter registration Web site. That would disqualify Mr. Abu Ismail from running for president under current Egyptian law.

The MB should outsource this case to Joe Arpaio.

Lawdawg86 on April 4, 2012 at 10:25 PM

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

It does not automatically give you a WH reception either.

journeyintothewhirlwind on April 4, 2012 at 10:33 PM

They all belong in Gitmo.

Including Obama for bringing this disaster on the world.

profitsbeard on April 4, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I cannot believe the Secret Service is letting terrorists into the WH, but then again very few of Obama’s friends could visit if the SS set such high standards.

txhsmom on April 4, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Let us hope your last tribute payment moderates things. What measures are you taking to regain the trust of the noble Egyptians? Remember, take short sharp licks so that tongue bathing Muslim scro doesn’t get to taste too crappy.

BL@KBIRD on April 4, 2012 at 10:54 PM

a Republican White House will have no choice but to gladhand the MB too

Idiotic. There is always an alternative.

The alternative, instead of bending over backwards to support “moderate” terrorists, is upholding the standards of common decency and Western morality and refusing to meet with or support terrorists.

The United States can sign a guarantee-of-sovereignty treaty with Israel anytime, and the United States absolutely should with no strings attached. The United States gets too much benefit from Israel – there are too many high-technology ties, both of the enterprise and of the military types, as well as too many intelligence resources, to see Israel go up in flames.

If the Egyptians or the Iranians or any other war-seeking entities in the Middle East attack Israel, the United States would then have full internationally-recognized right to defend Israel’s sovereignty and attack Egypt in return. The projection of strength would prevent an Egyptian attack on Israel. As long as Egypt has no nuclear weapons, MAD applies.

If Egypt wants to buddy up with Iran and create their own Axis-style network of friendly countries, completely cut off from the West, they absolutely have the right to do that. But the buck stops when Israel or any other Western nation gets attacked or is in reasonable suspicion of imminent attack.

Those who give up strength to pursue peace deserve neither strength nor peace. – Benjamin Franklin (paraphrase)

solatic on April 4, 2012 at 11:07 PM

New dilemma for the U.S.: Are we still on board with the Brotherhood’s candidate if the Salafist menace has suddenly been neutralized on a technicality?

That’s really a pretty stupid question. The United States Secretary of State’s (Hillary Clinton) personal assistant (Huma Abedin) is the daughter of high ranking Muslim Brotherhood Members. This is not speculation, it is a documented fact.

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and Al Qeada, the scrubbing begins.

SWalker on April 4, 2012 at 11:16 PM

New dilemma for the U.S.: Are we still on board with the Brotherhood’s candidate if the Salafist menace has suddenly been neutralized on a technicality?

Why does that matter… are you recommending an assassination campaign or military intervention if not? Should the US bar all Brotherhood members from travel to the US?

It’s amusing to hear the ‘no compromise’ geniuses lose composure over a country exercising its will at the polls through a democratic election. If the US dislikes the Brotherhood, the most effective action available is to embrace that party as a partner of the USA. It’s one thing for a party to burn the US flag when its out of power- it’s a different scenario entirely when that party is engaging the US in diplomacy and even paying tribute to the US by visiting the White House.

bayam on April 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM

BHO: So how much should I make the check out for?

minnesoter on April 4, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Yeah, I’ll bet all those idiotic rebels are wishing Obozo would have kept his mouth shut and the “arab winter” had failed now.

KMC1 on April 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Chickens came home to roost.

The Arab Spring is an iceberg.

Name one people who are free, or more free, due to Obama, I triple dare you.

p.s. don’t name the Black Panthers and the SEIU.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 12:13 AM

It’s amusing to hear the ‘no compromise’ geniuses lose composure over a country exercising its will at the polls through a democratic election.

bayam on April 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Well, you’re right that they exercised their will at the polls and they are certainly free to elect whomever they want. However, if they are morons and elect extremists then we can also exercise our will and not invite them to the White House or, better yet, not send them billions of dollars in foreign aid. Which is exactly what we should be doing with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

JohnInCA on April 5, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Will al-Zawahri be there too?

DANEgerus on April 5, 2012 at 12:44 AM

The new normal meets the usual suspects.

Sherman1864 on April 5, 2012 at 1:02 AM

The Muslim Brotherhood is the seed from which much of the evil in the Middle East grows.

http://i.imgur.com/7K2Q8.jpg

claudius on April 5, 2012 at 1:04 AM

He can’t run because his mother became an American citizen? Tough crowd.

Cindy Munford on April 5, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Who’s we, keemosabe?

J.E. Dyer on April 5, 2012 at 1:27 AM

All I want to know is are they coming in the FRONT door? leaving by the side door by the garbage cans like the Dalai Lama? being kept waiting for over 2 hours like the Israeli PM and listened to/spied on while in the office (aka the Israeli PM). Anything else is wasted space of time.

athenadelphi on April 5, 2012 at 3:13 AM

It’s amusing to hear the ‘no compromise’ geniuses lose composure over a country exercising its will at the polls through a democratic election.

bayam on April 4, 2012 at 11:33 PM

They say they are just exercising their will democratically when they elect people who wish to destroy Israel and the US. Very well. We must not disrespect democracy, after all.

We also may also exercise our will, democratically, to elect people who will bomb countries that attack us (or any civilized ally of ours) back to the stone age.

They may have their democracy, and we will have ours.

With apologies to Sir Charles Napier.

RINO in Name Only on April 5, 2012 at 3:48 AM

However, if they are morons and elect extremists then we can also exercise our will and not invite them to the White House or, better yet, not send them billions of dollars in foreign aid. Which is exactly what we should be doing with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

JohnInCA on April 5, 2012 at 12:17 AM

But that wouldn’t be an exercise in anything more than futility, and literally invite the party to tap into US resentment with anti-American rhetoric and policies. You may find this hard to believe, but such child-like behavior would achieve nothing and even undermine American influence in the region. It’s far better to spotlight those party leaders in meetings in DC and position their image accordingly.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 5:49 AM

The bros are bringing in their architects to determine the best positioning for the minarets and the necessary work to transform the Lincoln bedroom into a presidential prayer room. Welcome to the Ummah.

Annar on April 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM

Are any of these guys on the no-fly list?
Fallon on April 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

You are spot on!!! We should NOT be treating with these islamic supremacist thugs to begin with!
A travesty but one of so very many committed by our great leader.

Sherman1864 on April 5, 2012 at 7:08 AM

These are The Won’s spiritual brothers. There will be much bowing, many secret one-on-one meetings between Zero and this street thug, and many 1 way promises of aid and support to the Brotherhood.

The MB will still think Zero is a total idiot but they’ll take what they can get.

CorporatePiggy on April 5, 2012 at 7:37 AM

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Good grief! OK, you have to meet with them, that we understand, but you don’t have to play pat-a-cake with them and act like the rest of us are brain dead.

Cleombrotus on April 5, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Time for Obama to give a shout out to Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and Jodie Evans for their role in the “Arab Spring”.

Buy Danish on April 5, 2012 at 8:06 AM

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Do they really think the MB is going to rule under a democracy? And I thought we didn’t engage with terrorists?

NYconservative on April 5, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Now Egypt is firing missiles into Israel:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17620925

itsnotaboutme on April 5, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Now Egypt is firing missiles into Israel:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17620925

President Obama did much to give us the Islamo-fascist takeover of Egypt (see my first comment at 9:54 PM ).

Now Israel has rockets coming into its cities from the south & west as well as from the east & north.

Imagine if Mexico was firing hundreds of rockets into Tucson for decades.
Would we calmly sit around for endless peace talks, while the rockets kept coming?
No.
We would send our military to take out the badguys.
So why does the world insist that Israel keep negotiating with entities that want it destroyed?

itsnotaboutme on April 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Whatever happened to the ‘rule’ regarding NOT negotiating with terrorists?

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. “In all our conversations with these groups, we emphasize the importance of respect for minority rights, the full inclusion of women, and our regional security concerns.”
– The Muslim Brotherhood is a Terrorist Organization that believes in the massively oppressive SHIA LAW! Hazem Salah Abu Ismail is an old-school Islamist. He wants to move toward abolishing Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel and cites Iran as a successful model of independence from Washington. He worries about the mixing of the genders in the workplace and women’s work outside the home. And he promises to bring extraordinary prosperity to Egypt, if it turns its back on trade with the West… Yeah, I am sure negotiations, legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a party/government, is going to work out well! Good Grief!

easyt65 on April 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM

(Correction: Sharia Law)

easyt65 on April 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The symbolic timing: thanks to US/NATO backing the “Arab Spring” EGYPT is overrun by Islamofascist terrorists aka Muslim Brotherhood invited to Washington DC by the POTUS to meet during Passover/Easter, selecting the next Islamist world leader. Hosting White House talks with terrorists, rather than leaving the discussions through diplomatic intermediaries ties the POTUS with terrorism.

Liberty, In God We Trust.

May Americans choose the blessing to seek Wisdom rather than self indulgently depending upon the confiscation of others Wealth, whether domestic or global. Considering Motes and Beams in eyes, we’d do well to cleanse our own Congress and Executive Branch of authoritarians before justifying and depending upon the policy conducting interventionist undeclared wars against authoritarians of other nationalities, further empowering monopolizing corporations that victimize US TAXPAYERS.

Don’t expect to uphold the US Constitution (THE American Dream) when proudly you deride content (ex: “natural born”) as irrelevant at best, and vote against champions of Constitutional Governance, rejecting integrity/consistency that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Voting for one brand of authoritarianism over another is insane when the constitutional alternative is on the PRIMARY ballot. The only way to make constitutional integrity the founding plank of the GOP ticket ’12 is IN THE PRIMARY prove it when you vote. No, Ron Paul won’t win the POTUS ticket. But without tabulating your support for that constitutional agenda in the Primary, there’s NO chance Mutt will give constructionist “interpretation” more than lip service, aka lipstick on a campaign pig fattened anticipating a celebratory slaughter.

“In God We Trust”
Commemorating the Passover and Easter, despite horrendous abuses of empires and treachery from best friends and followers, miracles never cease, God Willing. May God Bless and Preserve the US Constitution through Americans who unite support defending the Supreme Law of the Land.

maverick muse on April 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I don’t know whay so many posts here show outrage.
Heck, it’s the Easter season, the holiest of Christian celebrations and we’re having our family get together. Should’d Obama be able to have his family gathering even if it is on the South Lawn. We’ll be having an Easter Egg hunt. He’ll be having a Christian “head” hunt. Come on everone, it’s just family fun, right?

Art on April 5, 2012 at 9:53 AM

And this just as rockets are hitting Isreal from Egypt’s Sinai area. Oh yeah, great timing.

jake49 on April 5, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The Egyptian people elected their government. No one should tell that who they should elect. Is their decision and must be respected

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Funny, I remember liberals from all over the world trying to interfere in USA elections (most notably Bush) by telling us who to elect.

Lib4Life, can you truly not see the World War that is coming, with USA vs Islam with Turkey as the spearhead into the heart of Europa once the new Caliphate is consolidated? The lives lost, the human suffering! Another war in Europe which this time Europe will be far less able to defend itself because they are not armed up due to NATO? We will bear partial responsibility!

Gad, Liberals are stupid.

Bulletchaser on April 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM

obama is not negotiating with terrorists.

That would indicate some kind of give and take. Trust me, he’s not asking for one damn thing in return. All he wants to know is what they are demanding so he can meet said demands.

Negotiation is not part of this game.

runawayyyy on April 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Are they talking about the takeover of Egypt or America ?

BillyPenn on April 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Who’s we, keemosabe?

J.E. Dyer on April 5, 2012 at 1:27 AM

LOL.

AesopFan on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM