Are Obama and Kerry passing it? Gee, in the olden days, of Boooosh, having dozens of countries with us, but not France, was “going it alone.” Now, apparently France, and no one else (other than Turkey), is the World United.
And yes, I am back from Alaska, though we didn’t make it to Seward — the weather was too crummy — but we did take a walk in Kincaid Park in Anchorage, and saw a bull moose fifty feet off the trail. But we have relatives visiting for the weekend, so posting will remain spotty.
It’s always someone else’s fault with this schmuck. And don’t get me started on the hypocrisy, after all the things he said and did as a US senator. I’m waiting for an apology from him, Kerry, Hagel and Clinton to George Bush. I won’t hold my breath.
I’m very concerned that the president has been replacing officers sworn to the latter with those loyal to him at the top of the chain. In which case things could get very ugly if we have to find out how far down the ranks we have to go to find some loyal to their oath of service.
We saw a smaller-scale version of this with Bill Clinton, when he attempted to prevent his Secret Service agents from providing testimony about his behavior, as though they were some sort of praetorian guard. The potential Constitutional crisis Donald Sensing describes would be much more serious.
Some discomfiting thoughts on their implications for foreign policy and hapless presidents.
Speaking of cascade effects, there seems to be a preference cascade developing on the lack of both hap and feck with this president. It’s apparently becoming socially acceptable, even at the New York Times, to point out what a disaster he is.
The SPLC is listed as a resource for information on hate groups and referenced several times throughout the guide.
Morris Dees and his SPLC is itself a “hate group.” Unfortunately, nothing will be done about this until we get a president who cares, instead of one who supports this Bravo Sierra.
What’s realistic and desirable is for the military to succeed in its confrontation with the Brotherhood as quickly and convincingly as possible. Victory permits magnanimity. It gives ordinary Egyptians the opportunity to return to normal life. It deters potential political and military challenges. It allows the appointed civilian government to assume a prominent political role. It settles the diplomatic landscape. It lets the neighbors know what’s what.
And it beats the alternatives. Alternative No. 1: A continued slide into outright civil war resembling Algeria’s in the 1990s. Alternative No. 2: Victory by a vengeful Muslim Brotherhood, which will repay its political enemies richly for the injuries that were done to it. That goes not just for military supremo Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and his lieutenants, but for every editor, parliamentarian, religious leader, businessman or policeman who made himself known as an opponent of the Brotherhood.
Question for Messrs. Graham, Leahy and Paul: Just how would American, Egyptian, regional or humanitarian interests be advanced in either of those scenarios? The other day Sen. Paul stopped by the Journal’s offices in New York and stressed his opposition to any U.S. policy in Syria that runs contrary to the interests of that country’s Christians. What does he suppose would happen to Egypt’s Copts, who have been in open sympathy with Gen. Sisi, if the Brotherhood wins?
Of course there’s the argument that brute repression by the military energizes the Brotherhood. Maybe. Also possible is that a policy of restraint emboldens the Brotherhood. The military judged the second possibility more likely. That might be mistaken, but at least it’s based on a keener understanding of the way Egyptians think than the usual Western clichés about violence always begetting violence.
There’s also an argument that since our $1.3 billion in military aid hasn’t gotten Gen. Sisi to take our advice, we may as well withdraw it. But why should we expect him to take bad advice? Politics in Egypt today is a zero-sum game: Either the military wins, or the Brotherhood does. If the U.S. wants influence, it needs to hold its nose and take a side.
Yes. And the right side.
This should be obvious. It’s frightening that it is not, to either Obama or McCain.