The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama Administration

The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama

Richard Baehr


Professor Barry Rubin argues in his latest article
that the Administration’s approach to the new Middle East is becoming clearer,
and that it represents the worst single strategic blunder in American foreign
policy in the Middle East in decades. In essence, the Obama team has decided
that it can live with and work with  Islamist regimes  in the Middle East, so
long as Al Qaeda is not the group in power.

In other words the Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, if it succeeds in
taking power in Egypt and other Arab countries currently in turmoil. Rubin
quotes  the new policy as described in a Washington Post article
and then offers his reaction:
“The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various
movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal
assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological
differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.”

Get it?
Al-Qaeda is bad because it wants to attack U.S. embassies, the World Trade
Center, and the Pentagon.

BUT the Muslim Brotherhood is good! Because it
merely wants to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule
90 million people, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the
Palestinian Authority, help Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy,
and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.

I’m sure you
can see the difference. This is the nonsense that the administration has been
working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president’s
advisor on terrorism, elements in the CIA, and White House ideologues. The State
and Defense departments are probably horrified.

Here’s the next

“`We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these
countries,'” said a senior administration official….`It’s the behavior of
political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their
relationship with Islam.'”

That first phrase is correct. We shouldn’t be
afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. Islam has always been
present in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia or post-Saddam Iraq, and even Iran
before its revolution and Afghanistan not under the Taliban. But we should be
very afraid of Islamism in the politics of these countries. “

.    .    .   .
For weeks, the Administrations’ favorite newspaper, the New York Times has
been paving  the way for the new policy with a series of opinion pieces and news
stories on the new “moderate” face of the Muslim Brotherhood,  their commitment
to non-violence, their discipline and social service role.
The new policy is in some ways consistent with the docile American attitude
towards Iran- where engagement was tried and failed, weak sanctions were applied
with enough loopholes to make them like swiss cheese slices, the anti-regime
demonstrations were ignored and garnered no support, and military action was
never contemplated.  The result- the Administration is now preparing for a
nuclear Iran , and all that is left is finding a way to contain Iran’s
aggressive posture once it becomes a nuclear power.

Barack and the bear

Barack and the bear

Jim Mahoney


In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran a brilliant 30 second spot
about “the bear”.
While the adversary then was the USSR, one of the responses to the threat
portrayed in the ad is identical to our current President’s reaction to Islamic
murderers.  First, we had his response to Major Hasan’s wanton murder of
fourteen Americans, and now to the murder of the two airmen in

Despite help from outlets like CNN that presumably took their
cue from the Oval Office and reported the German attack without mentioning
Islam, or the too familiar battle cry preceding the “heroic” attack on unarmed
people, the word is leaking out to anyone paying attention.  Unfortunately, too
many Americans will be taken in again, accepting the assault as mysterious,
spontaneous, isolated case of “gun violence”.

The White House has
developed a clear pattern when responding to Islamic attacks on Americans.  We
now see them and the rest of the left extending to Islam the same delusional
cover traditionally granted ghetto violence.  As Reagan’s ad says, “…for some
people the bear is easy to see; others don’t see it at all…”

Reagan never conducted a foreign policy based on see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil.  He had no trouble seeing the bear, calling it evil and going on
to defeat it.

Mr. President, we knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is an
inspiration to us.

You sir are no Ronald Reagan.