Egypt Aflame [Updated Below]
…When it comes to revolutions, it isn’t always those who start them or even gain temporary control who wind up on top when the music stops.
Damn! I wish I had written that…but, instead, DrewM over at Ace Of Spades thought of it first [tip of the fedora to Stacy McCain]. It doesn’t matter who starts a Revolution. Often the ones who do get crushed by the those who are smart enough to seize the advantage for their own cause [see, Lafayette, Marquis de or Kerensky, Alexander].
Both Drew and Ed Morrissey think the fact that the Egyptian Army has announced it will not use force against those protesting the Mubarak Regime may have sealed Mubarak’s fate. Indeed. It also seems the Army has endorsed ‘freedom of expression’. This is the gambit many of us have been waiting for: what would the military do to try to survive.
The question now becomes: Who will they side with of all of the groups involved in the protests?
The Egyptian Army has always been secular, more than willing to resist the Jihadists. Will it stay that way and try to see that Egypt transforms into a secular regime, or will it, like the Russian Army, make the mistake of siding with Egypt’s equivalent of the Bolsheviks — the Mohammedins. If they commit such a blunder, I have no doubt many of them will eventually find themselves put up against a wall.
-I WILL COMPLETE THIS POSTING AFTER DINNER.
UPDATE at 1901…
-Stacy McCain has another good aggregation of news and analysis up at his place that he is updating. Here’s a quip from America’s Favorite Gonzo Reporter:
…Notice that when the streets in Cairo fill up with protesters against Mubarak, liberals scream that there must be elections now — immediately! — or else it’s a human-rights disaster. But when the streets of America filled up with protesters against ObamaCare, liberals said, “Ignore those kooks!”
-In the Comments section of Stacy’s post, Adobe Walls makes some good points:
It is at this moment that not supporting the “Green Movement” in Iran last year bites us in the a**. The Iranian theocracy will use it’s assets which are already in place in most if not all the countries experiencing upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East.
If O’Sputnik had spoken out against the blatantly fraudulent election in 09, instead of pretending that the will of the people had spoken. If he had supported the demonstrators who opposed a radical Islamic state and devoted as much covert assistance as possible and while still maintaining the thinnest of veils covering our involvement, we would have looked like the strong horse that is so respected in that part of the world. Even if the Greens had minimal successes and the conflict still raged the regime would be too busy trying to survive to be as influential as they are capable of now.
Suppose however the Green revolution had succeeded in overthrowing the Ayatollahs. Suppose the example of tyranny overthrown was the demise of an Islamic theocracy rather than an Autocracy opposed to radical Islamists.
I swear if these nitwits running our country fell in a barrel of tits they’d come out sucking their thumbs.
Regarding his last sentence: ROTFLMAO.
-For the purposes of this post, I will not be calling Obama by the nickname ‘O’Sputnik’, but, rather, Pharaoh Snafu II of Thieves.
-Over at The American Spectator, Daniel Oliver delivers a righteous Fisking to Snafu II for his insipid remarks to the nation on Friday. A highlight:
“At the same time,” continued the president, “those protesting in the streets have the responsibility to express themselves peacefully. Violence and destruction will not lead to the reforms that they seek.” A few minutes later, the president said, “Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people.” The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, had sounded the theme earlier in the day: “There’s no situation that — this is certainly not a situation that will be solved by violence.”
Where to begin? Either the protesters will succeed, however success is defined, and therefore will have succeeded by resorting to violence. Or the Mubarak regime will survive, however that is defined, because its violence was more violent than the violence of the protesters.
Whether the situation is “solved” depends on where you’re throwing your bombs from. Whoever wins this struggle will have succeeded through the use of more or better targeted violence.
The man-child, Nancy-boy cannot possibly believe this offal he’s spewing with diarrheic vigor.
The world is left wondering what position America, the world’s former superpower, will take. The only stance our administration has taken to date is a generic plea for an end to the violence and the oft-repeated call for human rights. Meanwhile, the world teeters on the brink as a global crisis with profound geopolitical implications for the U.S. continues to unfold.
Obama’s 3 AM moment has come. And gone. Obama was noticeably AWOL. America is now officially bereft of leadership, at least until the latest polls come in.
Under Obama’s leadership, the U.S. has voluntarily ceded its authority as the world’s superpower. After all, according to Obama, all countries and cultures are equal. America’s voice should be but one of many. This is now becoming a reality. Egypt continues to burn. And Obama parties and Twitters by proxy. Welcome to the new world order.
In the jungle, the mighty jungle
The Liar sleeps tonight
-To be fair, Miss Morgan, Snafu II did take some time out from his partying to do this:
The Obama administration has made one little-noticed but deeply significant policy appointment recently: it has installed Alfred E. Neuman at the center of is decision-making process for the Middle East. “But wait,” you may be saying, “I thought his name was Bruce Riedel, late of the CIA, now advisor to Obama and scholar at the Brookings Institution for Triangulation, Appeasement, and Reasons to Blame America First?”
Between us, his name is Bruce Riedel. But just as two things that are equal to a third thing are also equal to each other, so Mr. Riedel is equal in wisdom and general outlook to Mad Magazine’s house philosopher. He has enjoyed superior dentistry, but his motto is the same: “What, me worry?”
Everyone is nervously eyeing Egypt, wondering if strong man Hosni Mubarak will survive or whether he will be toppled by the multitude clamoring for . . . what exactly are they clamoring for? Therein lies the rub. Most responsible commentators, I would argue, worry that although “freedom,” “democracy,” and “self-determination” are on their lips, sharia and theocratic tyranny may well be in their hearts.
Mr. Riedel-Newman is having none of it. In a remarkable piece for the Daily Beast called “Don’t Fear the Muslim Brotherhood,” he assures readers that the Brotherhood has long since renounced violence and may well be the “most reasonable” option for Egypt. To listen to Mr. Riedel-Neuman, you would think that the Muslim Brotherhood was nearly indistinguishable from a Great Society social welfare program: “it has an enormous social-welfare infrastructure that provides cheap education and health care.” It even worked hard, according to Mr. Riedel-Neuman, to assure fair elections in Egypt last time around.
You’re in good hands with No-Ball-State.
That quote was from a posting by Roger Kimball that is well-worth a read.
-Over at The Corner, Andrew McCarthy provides us with some facts to keep in mind as you watch the events unfold over the coming days, weeks, and months in Egypt:
A few days ago, ElBaradei gave an interview to Der Spiegel — Aaron Klein reported on it at WND yesterday. As Klein noted, ElBaradei is widely seen as a staunch ally of the Brotherhood (surprise!) and gave a spirited defense of them that was about as honest as his disclosures about the Iranian nuclear program used to be: “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood,” he insisted. According to ElBaradei, the Brothers “have not committed any acts of violence in five decades.” [ACM note: the Brotherhood killed Sadat in 1981; Hamas kills people everyday.] ElBaradei, who also admires President Obama ardently, said that the Brothers just “want change.” Thus, he concludes, “If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.” [ACM: Yeah, just like we did with Hamas -- and how's that workin' out?]
For its part, the Obama administration — which has made outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and its American affiliates a policy priority — reciprocates ElBaradei’s admiration. Robert Gibbs said Friday that the president knows ElBaradei well and has worked closely with him.
By the way, ElBaradei also says “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East,” and has expressed strong support for the Palestinian “resistance,” particularly in Hamas-controlled Gaza (which he calls “the world’s largest prison”), because, in his opinion, “the Israeli occupation only understands the language of violence.”
Makes you wonder how ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood managed to find each other — they’re so very different. Amazing to see the forces that “change” brings together.
Lovely…just lovely. But, then again, you knew Snafu II of Theives would never be on the side of the Angels…ever.
UPDATE at 1955…
Matt, proprietor of Conservative Hideout, has provided us with a resource posting of links to various blog postings on the situation in Egypt. He was kind enough, once again, to link my humble contributions.
Please do take the time to click here and check out this very useful aggregation. And don’t forget to keep going back to it for updates.
Thank you, Matt.