Egypt Open Thread

Okay, here’s what we know.

First, this was Obama:

Second, Morsi is the black knight:

Third, and now I’m getting serious, Egypt is either going to explode or the military will impose harsh military rule very quickly to prevent an explosion.  Morsi is under house arrest, which makes his refusal to step down more symbolic than real.  Nevertheless, as symbolism, he will continue as the leader for and inspiration to Islamists and other Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

Fourth, despite his fawning Cairo speech in 2009, the Egyptians really, really hate Obama — as well they should.  It was Obama’s utter failure of leadership two years ago that paved the way for the Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, a takeover that is both totalitarian and incompetent.  This time around, Obama’s patent support for the unpopular Morsi administration, followed by his leadership from behind (now that Morsi is obviously yesterday’s news, Obama is finally officially abandoning him), have led the Egyptians to realize what we on the right already figured out:  Obama is a weak man who does not like democratic values and, if given the choice, will always hew to dictators, the more Islamist the better.

Fifth, although Morsi was a bad leader, chaos in the Middle East’s most populous and most broke nation is not a good thing.  It’s also unclear now whether the military will abide by the peace treaty with Israel into which Sadat entered, or if Morsi was able to put enough Islamists in place that it will go even further than he did to ignore or entirely abandon the treaty.  There’s only a one in three chance of this turning out well for Israel.  These are the three options:  chaos and revolution, which is bad for Israel, since the only way to stop these revolutions is to find a scapegoat outside of Egypt; an Islamisized military, which is bad for Israel, because it may bring order to Egypt, but it will still attack Israel; or the military will abide by the peace treaty, which would be a good thing for Israel and for the rest of the Middle East.

I mentioned this was an open thread.  Please let me know what you think of what’s going on now and how you think things will turn out.

Gateway Pundit has pretty much real time updates about the speed with which the military is moving in Egypt.

If you were to bet on events in Egypt, how would you bet? *UPDATED*

Egypt protest in Tahir Square

Things in Egypt are coming to a head.  The protest in Tahir Square on Sunday is being billed as the largest political protest ever.  In addition to Cairo, people are protesting all over.  A mob burned down the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters.  Obama, after staying silent for some time, finally called upon to President Morsi to meet with the opposition and enact some democratic reforms.  (Two years ago, under similar circumstances, he demanded that the Egyptian president step down.)

I see a few scenarios playing out:

1.  Morsi leaves power.  There is a power vacuum, and a civil war.

2.  Morsi does not leave power.  There is a civil war.

3.  The military takes over, creating a military dictatorship.  Since Morsi tried to purge as many non-Islamist people as possible from the military, it is an Islamist military dictatorship.

4.  The military takes over, creating a military dictatorship.  Despite Morsi’s efforts to purge as many non-Islamist people as possible from the military, the military has remained primarily secular.  Once in power, it can either retain it or, having stabilized the country, pave the way for democratic elections.

5.  The military, which Morsi purged of moderate elements, backs Morsi.  It takes extreme measures, killing hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in order to put down the protests. The Muslim Brotherhood retains power, but with increased cruelty and despotism.

Keep in mind with these scenarios that Egypt has the largest population of any nation in the Arab Middle East, and that it shares borders with Libya (al Qaeda), the Sudan (Muslim extremists), and Israel (Jewish, democratic, prosperous).  It is also a country in deep economic decline, something that began under Mubarak and accelerated under Morsi.  Famine is dogging it.  Finally, Obama has continued to pour money and weapons (including F-18 fighters) into Egypt.

What do you think will happen?  Are any of my scenarios reasonable?  I assume there are a lot of scenarios that didn’t even occur to me.

UPDATE:  Right now, it looks as if the military is starting variation 4 — taking over — and to the extent it seems to support the protests, that may pave the way for a peaceful transition to a more democratic, non-sharia Egypt.  I know I sound cynical, but I’m not sure that people bred on decades of Islamism are capable of making that transition:

When are we going to admit that there is a war going on between us and radical Islam?

I’m guessing that a majority of Americans (a slim majority, but still a majority) know that America entered WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  What few stop to consider is why we ended up fighting, not only the Japanese who had just bombed us, but the Germans as well, since they, after all, had not yet done anything to us.  The answer to that unasked question is that, for reasons known only to a megalomaniac, a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Hitler declared war on the United States.  The United States took up the challenge with gusto.  Within months, America had become a war machine, cranking out ships, tanks, guns, airplanes, and trained troops.  If Hitler hadn’t acted, Germany might have won the war.  England, after all, was on the ropes by the time America came in to help out.

It’s a little chilling to think that, were we to replay December 1941 with Obama in the White House, America would simply have ignored Germany’s declaration of war.  We would have heard that we have no quarrel with the Germans, who are a peaceful people, except of course for a handful of madmen.  We would have been told that, if these madmen killed our citizens, we would bring the actual killers to justice, but that we had no quarrel with the nations or ideology that gave birth to those killers and that are hard at work to raise an army of madmen.

As our administration and media talked, Hitler would have tightened his grip on Europe; fought a single front war against the Soviet Union; killed all the Jews, Gypsies, mentally disabled, and homosexuals in Europe; and then enslaved all Slavs and Communists (never mind that Naziism was a variation of socialism itself).   At the end of the day, our government would have said that we’re scarcely in a position to criticize the Nazis, since America was once a slave country itself.  Congress would then have announced economic sanctions, but the Executive office would have failed to enforce them.

But we don’t need a hyp0thetical December 1941 to imagine what our current administration would do.  We can watch it in real-time today.  There is a saying that “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” — and it’s funny that you should mention Egypt right now.  As if 9/11/01 and 9/11/02 weren’t strong enough declarations of war, Islamist clerics are actively calling all Egyptians to wage war against the west, starting with kidnapping:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law.

I’ll admit that this is a challenging war because we are fighting, not a single nation, but a geographically diffuse ideology, but it is still war.  After all, what do you call it when a vast and recognizable group of individuals announces that it intends to kill and enslave your people, and then uses arms to carry out that promise?

We should be addressing this war on all fronts:  militarily, economically, and ideologically.  Instead, we are pretending it’s not happening.  To give credit where it’s due, George W. Bush figured out the military part and, with Iran, the economic part.  His problem, though, was that, as leader of a pluralist country, but he couldn’t bring himself to break through political correctness to admit that we are at war with a huge ideological foe.  After all, many Americans who are good, decent people share the same label (i.e., “Muslim”) as that foe. We confuse linguistic nuances with substance.

A problem of nomenclature, though, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that we have an active, resolute, powerful, and devious enemy.  We therefore do not fight that foe by excusing it.  Instead, we fight it by using every breath of free speech to challenge it in every way possible — debate, media, leaflets dropped from airplanes, and whatever else could work.

Obama has been the ultimate Islamist apologist.  He has only half-heartedly imposed sanctions against Iran, given a blank check to the Palestinians (who are a front in this Islamist jihad), weakened Israel (which is an ally in this existential battle), demoralized troops and energized enemies in Afghanistan by setting a certain pull-out date, and undermined a nascent democracy in Iraq by pulling out all troops without leaving a provisional force.  As for what just happened in Benghazi, that’s a chapter in itself, one that includes institutional cowardice and politicizing, lying, cover-ups and, with the imprisonment of a video maker, the destruction of our First Amendment.

Not only is Obama not much of a leader, he’s totally unsuited to military leadership.  You have to love your country to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to believe in your country’s values to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to courage to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  At every level, in every way, Obama fails as a military leader.  Let’s fire him from the job before it’s too late and we find ourselves defeated in the war we continue to pretend doesn’t exist.

Further thoughts on events in the Middle East and, especially, on the feckless Obama administration

First of all, it appears that the suspicions I voiced yesterday about the film that started it all are, if not true, at least headed in the right direction.  Poynter has a post detailing all the peculiarities about the film — the lies, the misdirection, and the purpose behind it (to incite violence).  It was a head-fake from the beginning.

Second of all, you all have probably heard the stories that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized and mutilated either before or after he was killed.  Right now, these are unconfirmed rumors, but there is every reason to believe that they are true.

When it comes to Muslim Arab culture, how self-delusional were all these people on the Left not to have figured out that there are some cultural stereotypes about Muslim Arabs that live on because they keep proving them to be true: They cook outstanding food, they abuse their women, they kill homosexuals, and they rape and mutilate any of their enemies unlucky enough to have fallen into their hands.

My parents came of age in 1930s and 1940s Palestine, so I’ve heard about Arab culture my entire life (and my parents had lots of Arab friends, Christians admittedly, whom they valued greatly.)  Muslim Arab culture is a brutal one predicated on power, both physical and, especially, sexual. They are adequate friends and horrible enemies. Does this hold true for every single Muslim Arab in the world? Of course not. But it’s true enough for a sufficient percentage of them that we ought to be very guarded in our dealings with them.

Speaking of being guarded in our dealings with them, that guard should include having actual security guards. Too bad Valerie Jarrett didn’t loan some of her guards to the Libyan embassy, which had no American security detail; or maybe she could have given some of the bullets that her guards carry to the Egyptian embassy, where the guards were denied live ammo.

As it was during the Carter years, this is amateur hour at the Ritz. The problem that, when America goes amateur, not only Americans die, but everyone starts taking hits. Without strong leadership from a nation dedicated to individual freedom, you pretty much end up with a pack of rabid wild dogs controlling the world’s zeitgeist.

Was yesterday’s embassy attack in Cairo a set-up from beginning to end?

The story goes that Sam Bacile, an Israeli living in America, created a crude video that so inflamed Egyptian sensibilities that they had to besiege the American embassy in Cairo.  I’ve been wondering how they got wind of that silly video in the first place.  Now I’m wondering if this whole thing wasn’t a set-up, including video.  It turns out that there is no Sam Bacile.  Scrape away the top layer, and you get the claim that it’s a pseudonym.

Scrape away the next layer and you find that there is a Sam Bassel, who is an Egyptian and who created the original video that was crudely dubbed into something inflammatory:

Actually, there’s basically no evidence that “Sam Bacile” even exists. The closest person who fits that description (at least electronically) is a self-proclaimed Egyptian “movie-maker” in California, who calls himself “Sam Bassel” on Facebook. Bassel has been registered on Facebook since 2010, and has posted regularly about the movies he supposedly produces, including the one that was used as a pretext for the Egyptian riots.

“Hello, I am a producer in a America and I live in Hollywood California,” he wrote in a July 15 post, well before the controversy erupted in Egypt. “I recently produced a movie that I believe to be one of the most historically important movie of our times. It is a 2 hour long movie about the entire life of the Prophet Muhammad from start to finish. Everything that is depicted in the movie is very true and well documented in all historical books that are found and taught in all Islamic countries.”

Bassel has posted about the film often over the past few months. According to one post, the movie took Bassel 12 years to complete and “blames America for the wars that occurred recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Hmmm.

I have no proof whatsoever, but I’ll tell you what popped into my head:  the Mohamed cartoons.  What happened was that a Danish newspaper editor refused to be cowed by sharia strictures and took it upon himself to publish cartoons showing illustrator’s imaginings of Mohamed’s face.  Some clearly mocked him or implied that he was violent.  And then nothing happened.  Absolutely nothing.

Events reached a head over those cartoons — with violent, murderous riots all over the world — when an Imam took it upon himself to republish the cartoons.  More than that, since they were insufficiently inflammatory in the Imam’s estimation, he added a few cartoons.  The truly foul ones — such as Mohamed with a pig face or Mohamed’s face on a dog’s body — weren’t from the Danish cartoonist (something that should have been obvious, given how primitive they were, compared to the more sophisticated imagery in the Jyllands-Posten.

Instead, the most offensive images came directly from Imam Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban’s own hands.  He created those disgusting pictures specifically to spur riot and rapine.  He succeeded, too, because the Muslim mob is nothing if not easily led.

This faking technique worked well once before to stir up the mob.  Who’s to say that we haven’t just witnessed the technique being used again, and to the same effect:  Inflaming the Muslim masses.  This doesn’t mean Mr. Sam Bassel is the culprit.  It just means that, based upon past history, this is as likely to be a set-up as it is to be a genuine example of American free speech.

Our feckless president

We all recall how Michael Moore mercilessly savaged George Bush because, when the first reports about the 9/11 terrorist attacks began, Bush was reading a story book to small children, and chose not to run screaming out of the room.  Fast-forward eleven years and we have a president who boasts that he’s better than everybody at doing anything.  Apparently he’s now decided to one-up Bush’s insouciance in the face of imminent disaster.

Yesterday was not a good day for America.  First, it was the eleventh anniversary of the most deadly attack ever launched against U.S. soil.  More than 3,000 American civilians died, horribly, over the course of a few hours, and they did so at the hands of people in thrall to radical Islam.  Obama celebrated this anniversary by campaigning, talking music with a pimp with a limp, and by sending a nice message to the Arab Forum on Asset Recovery.  Feckless.

Moving on from past tragedy to imminent disaster, radical Islamists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.  The Embassy responded before the attack by apologizing explicitly for Free Speech and doubled-down on that apology after the attack.  Hillary Clinton — Obama’s highest State Department official — reiterated the spineless apology.  The administration has tried now to walk back the statement, claiming that it didn’t authorize it (something that rings untrue in light of Hillary’s conduct) but the damage is done:

But the damage control being performed in Washington isn’t enough to put the administration’s stand in a positive light. If the initial apology resonated around the world it was because it was very much in line with the tone of moral equivalence that was the keynote of President Obama’s speech to the Arab world given in Cairo in June 2009. Having set forth a credo that balanced understanding for grievances against U.S. policies with a desire to conciliate its critics rather than to forthrightly defend America and its allies, the president cannot now be surprised when the instinct of U.S. representatives abroad, and especially those in Cairo, is to apologize first and to be resolute later.

Feckless.

The news of what happened in Egypt was swiftly followed by a report that “rebels” had stormed the American embassy in Benghazi, killing one person.  It only got worse.  We learned today that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were deliberately murdered — Christopher by alleged “suffocation,” and the three others by gun shots.  The murderers than did the usual Arab thing of dragging the Ambassador’s body through the streets.  Honestly, they’re so primitive out there that, if it wasn’t for the Koran’s dietary proscriptions, I suspect they would have gone all Aztec or Druid and eaten his heart.

Obama’s response was swift:  He’s heading for Vegas.  He did take time out from his busy campaign season this morning, however, to make a short statement.  Considering that he used this statement to jettison the First Amendment, maybe it would have been better if he’d just kept quiet and gotten on the Vegas plane.

Romney, incidentally, gave a speech in favor of Free Speech.  He clearly understands that yesterday’s events are not the pathetic Arab have-nots standing up against the arrogant and cruel American haves.  Instead, what we saw yesterday was the latest outbreak in a war between the backwards, repressed, bloodthirsty world and American exceptionalism, a doctrine founded on individual freedom, which is inextricably intertwined with Free Speech.

Maybe it’s no wonder that Obama was caught flat-footed.  He’s been so busy with campaigns and phone calls to rock stations and TV appearances that he hasn’t had any time for security briefings in the last week.  Yet more evidence, as if we need it, that Obama’s priorities are all about . . . Obama.  Feckless wretch.

Obama didn’t do any better in his dealings with Israel’s existential nightmare — a nuclear Iran.  The first reports were that Obama refused to speak to Netanhayu at all.  Fear not, Obama fans.  This doesn’t mean he’s too busy to do the really important stuff, such as making an appearance on David Letterman’s show.

When the uproar became too great to tolerate, Obama announced that he spoke on the phone for one hour with Netanyahu.  Think about that:  Israel, America’s only stable, democratic ally in the Middle East is facing a potential nuclear holocaust, and Obama is able to carve out a single hour from his busy schedule of shmoozing and begging for money.  As Roger Simon asks, how can Jews continue to ally themselves with Obama and Democrat party?

Obama is the most feckless president in American history, especially when it comes to the Middle East.  Or maybe he’s not feckless at all.  Worse, maybe this is part of a grand plan and ideology.

 

American embassy in Cairo appears to embrace sharia speech codes *UPDATED*

Yes, I understand that the embassy in Cairo is besieged but it does strike me as cowardly to abandon core principles as this juncture (emphasis mine):

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

September 11, 2012

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

You’d think that you wouldn’t have to provide basic constitutional lessons for U.S. Embassy employees but I guess they need a little review:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If we Americans want to say Islam is an incitement to violence, we can. If we want to put Jesus in a vat full of urine, we can. If we want to say Jews are greedy, we can. If we want to say Hindus worship cows, we can. If we want to say Mormons wear funny underwear, we can.  We are allowed to hurt the religious feelings of religious people.  It’s our right as Americans to be rude.  Neither tact, nor forbearance, nor non-mutual respect, nor polite lies are required under our Constitution.

Last thought:  It is possible that the language from embassy — that it’s bad “to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” — is as foolish as it is because the embassy people meant them ironically. Perhaps the White House said “say something that won’t hurt Muslim feelings,” and some P.O.’d embassy official came back with this nonsensical, unconstitutional PC fecal matter. I mean, the statement is too close to parody to be real. Isn’t it?  Come on, someone.  Please agree with me right about now.

Of course, if that statement is a heartfelt expression from America’s representative on Egypt’s soil, God help us all, because our government is in the hands of dhimmis.

UPDATE:  For more on embassy awfulness (proving that this is no joke, but is their real thinking) just check their twitter feed:


Is it possible that these government representatives do not understand that the essence of free speech is the ability to criticize religion?  No, it may not be very nice, but in a normal, non-sharia, world, this type of criticism leads to a debate that enriches the marketplace of ideas — and may the best idea win.  We do America a profound and lasting disservice if we abandon this core principle to pander to a 7th century mentality, the practitioners of which are deathly afraid to subject their beliefs to an intellectual airing and analysis.

Barry Rubin’s prediction for Egypt: Massive violence

When it comes to the Middle East, I’m hard-put to think of a more astute, knowledgeable observer than Barry Rubin.  In light of the Egyptian court ruling striking down large parts of the recent elections, and the military’s subsequent power move, he’s not sanguine about Egypt’s future:

The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court has just invalidated the parliamentary election there. The parliament, 75 percent of whose members were Islamists, is being dissolved. The military junta has taken over total authority. The presidential election is still scheduled for a few dozen hours from now.

In short, everything is confused and everything is a mess. All calculations are thrown to the wind. What this appears to be is a new military coup. What is the underlying theme? The armed forces concluded that an Islamist takeover was so dangerous for Egypt and for its own interests that it is better to risk civil war, a bloodbath, and tremendous unpopularity than to remain passive and turn over power. I believe this decision was made very reluctantly and not out of some lust for power by the generals. They have decided that they had no choice.

Yes, it is under legal cover, but nobody is going to see it as a group of judges — appointed by former President Hosni Mubarak, remember — looking deep into the law books and coming up with a carefully reasoned decision based on precedent. In theory, this will be seen by every Islamist — whether Salafi or Muslim Brotherhood — and by most of the liberals — who feel closer to the Islamists than to the government — as if the 2011 revolution has just been reversed. In preparation, the army prepared a new regulation allowing itself arrest anyone.

Prediction: massive violence.

Read the rest here, especially because Rubin tempers that grim conclusion with some speculation about the weird silence with which the Islamists have greeted the events of the last 48 hours.

Syria — random thoughts

I’ve been quiet about a lot of the revolutions in the Middle East.  The only one as to which I was really vocal was the attempted revolution in Iran — and that was because I thought the uprising could only benefit America.  That regime is so evil, that destabilizing it for awhile, even if would eventually be replaced by an equally bad regime, would still be good for us.  As long as Obama is in the White House, the bare minimum that would benefit America would be to buy time until a competent, pro-American (and, one hopes, pro-Israel) president is in the White House.  Obama, of course, was conspicuously absent during the attempted Iranian uprising, and I can’t fault him enough for that silence.

As for the other “revolutions” . . . .

Tunisia did not affect America one way or another.  It was short, sweet, and seemed to have a good outcome for the citizens, which is a blessing, and I’m pleased for them.

Egypt!?  Oy.  Mubarak was a slimeball but he was our slimeball.  He kept the peace with Israel and he did not threaten American interests.  Obama’s first response was to say nothing, then he said nothing useful, then he suddenly announced that Mubarak had to go, then he didn’t know what to do after having made that announcement, and then it became clear that he had no idea what to do in the vacuum following Mubarak’s departure.

Right now, Egypt is poised on the knife’s edge, as the Muslim Brotherhood, having waited for this moment for decades, slowly and carefully begins to consolidate power.  The MB is helped by the fact that this radical, nationalist, sharia oriented movement got the official Obama stamp of approval.  I’m not saying the Egyptian revolution could have been stopped or (since I lack a crystal ball) that it will be a bad thing in the long term.  I am saying, however, that Obama proved himself totally inept and incapable of shaping the situation to America’s advantage.  He was a reactor, not an actor.

In Libya, Obama again plays the helpless idiot.  He cedes leadership to France, which seizes it with gusto but that doesn’t mean that the seizure is to America’s benefit.  Libya’s oil supply is neither here nor there for us.  He’s now snuck is into a war that not only confers zero benefit on us, but that aids al Qaeda, which is currently trying to kill our troops in Afghanistan.  There is no good outcome here.

Three revolutions, three missteps by Obama.  Meanwhile, he and his State Department made all sorts of silly noises about President Assad being a reformer, despite the fact that his is one of the most evil, corrupt regimes in the world, not to mention the fact that it’s hand in hand with Iran.

So then, Syria blows up.  And what does the Obama administration do?  Nothing.  Burned twice, and trapped by its own recent word’s praising Assad’s presidency, it’s paralyzed.  The problem is that, Syria, like Iran, is a place where a revolution is not necessarily bad for America’s interests.  The Syrian people might go from the frying pan into the fire, which would be unfortunate for them, but we, at least would buy time.  A country in disarray is not usually a country that is capable of pursuing evil against nations outside its border.

The score for Obama is four revolutions and four leadership failures.  Sadly, given America’s staggering but still existent preeminence, that’s the exact same score for the Americans, the Israelis, the Egyptians, the Iranians and, so far, the Syrians.

Aside from trendiness, there’s something wrong here

I’m with Sadie, that there’s something deeply off-putting about Obama casually applying the ancient Passover story to the uprisings in the Middle East:

Passover recalls the bondage and suffering of Jews in Egypt and the miracle of the Exodus, but U.S. President Barack Obama says its message is reflected in Muslim uprisings.

In his annual message, prior to his third straight participation in the Passover Seder, President Obama stated, “The story of Passover…instructs each generation to remember its past, while appreciating the beauty of freedom and the responsibility it entails. This year that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Aside from the superficiality of Obama’s message, it has two other problems.  First, typically for a Progressive, he fails to understand revolts that are keyed to a people’s freedom versus revolts that simply raise up a new oppressor.

In America, because of the American Revolution, our template is that revolutions bring about greater freedom.  However, as France, Russia, China, Cuba, etc., show, our revolution was not typical.  As often as not, a “revolution” simply brings about an equal or greater tyranny.  It remains to be seen, for example, whether Egypt results in greater freedom for the people (since Mubarak was very oppressive) or lesser freedom (since there is nothing more repressive than an Islamic regime).  At least Mubarak was dormant when it came to waging war against Israel and America.

Libya sees exactly the same problem. Gaddafi is a monster but, vis a vis America, he has been a benign monster since 2003.  Now, though, we’re cheerfully spending millions of dollars a day (dollars we don’t have) to overthrow Gaddafi so that al Qaeda can take his place.  Al Qaeda, which is killing our troops in Afghanistan, will not improve the Libyan people’s lot (because radical Islam is always oppressive government), but it will put America at greater risk.

In Iran, I supported the Green Revolution because it was good for America:  anything that rocked the current Islamic government had to improve the status quo as far as Americans were concerned.  It was, frankly, questionable whether the Iranian people would simply be trading the frying pan for the fire.  While I applauded their courage, I had my doubts about their freedom quota.

Not all uprisings are created equal.  That’s problem number one with Obama’s facile little analysis.

Problem number two is that there’s something horrible about quoting one of the greatest stories in Jewish history, a story that has been retold annually in Jewish homes for thousands of years, to justify revolutions that will put into power people who have as their primary goal . . . killing Jews.  That’s just wrong.  Deeply, deeply, classlessly, tactlessly wrong.

Niall Ferguson on Obama’s role in Egypt

I was remarkably silent on Egypt.  The situation was too fluid for me to grab a hold of.  I knew only that Obama’s policy would follow whoever seemed likely to win, since he will always hew to the strong man.  Now that it’s over, I was thinking of writing about the abysmal Obama performance (following, no clear ideological goal, confused and ever-changing messages), but I discovered that someone got there better and first.  You can read Niall Ferguson’s Newsweek article, or just watch the video as a reporter desperately tries to defend Obama, and Ferguson rips her apart:

Hat tip:  small dead animals