Posts tagged ‘Egypt’

September 6, 2011

Linking al-Qaeda to Baghdad

by Vince

With the new Dick Cheyney book out, this monster under the rug has come back to haunt America. Here is a segment of a conversation Col. Lawrence Wilkerson had with then Secretary of State Colin Powell:

He had pulled me aside in the National Intelligence Council spaces in the CIA, put me in a room, he and I alone, and he told me he was going to throw all the presentation material about the connection between Baghdad and al-Qaeda out, completely out. I welcomed that, because I thought it was all bogus.

Within about an hour, George Tenet, having scented that something was wrong with the Secretary vis-à-vis this part of his presentation, suddenly unleashes on all in his conference room that they have just gotten the results of an interrogation of a high-level al-Qaeda operative, and those results not only confirm substantial contacts between an al-Qaeda and Baghdad, the Mukhabarat and Baghdad, the secret police, if you will, but also the fact that they were training, they were actually training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Well, this was devastating. Here’s the DCI telling us that a high-level al-Qaeda operative had confirmed all of this. So Powell put at least part of that back into his presentation.

We later learned that that was through interrogation methods that used waterboarding, that no U.S. personnel were present at the time–it was done in Cairo, Egypt, and it was done by the Egyptians–and that later, within a week or two period, the high-level al-Qaeda operative recanted everything he had said. We further learned that the Defense Intelligence Agency had issued immediately a warning on that, saying that they didn’t trust the reliability of it due to the interrogation methods. We were never shown that DIA dissent, and we were never told about the circumstances under which the high-level al-Qaeda operative was interrogated. Tenet simply used it as a bombshell to convince the secretary not to throw that part, which was a very effective part, if you will recall, out of his presentation.

August 31, 2011

What Kind of Nations Will Come From The Twitter Revolutions?

by Vince

Looking back on the world’s history, I have a funny feeling that today’s revolutionaries may not turn their countries into such benign places as we’d like to think. How do we know they will be able to put everything together and democratically operate? Will a new despot emerge from the rubble? This is not to say that I prefer Mubarak or Ben Ali or Gadaffi, but it is too soon it some regards to sound the horn of cheer. The real work may still be before them. Countries like Tunisia have a lot of problems and a charismatic leader may emerge with a scapegoat strategy for rebuilding. Aaron Brady is more optimistic:

[I]nstead of the personality cult by which Presidents-for-life like Ben Ali and Mubarak have ruled for decades, the masses of nameless Cairenes and Tunisians—assembled on Facebook and in the street—represents a kind of anti-personality cult. When everyone is “Khaled Said” (or “Mohamed Bouazizi” in Tunisia), after all, the story being told is not only that the nation is united, but that it is united by the common experience of having suffered at the hands of the state. In this sense, instead of “leaderless revolutions,” perhaps we might think about how Facebook helped facilitate a “revolution of leaderlessness“?…

In other words, what Gladwell flags as a weakness of social media—the difficulty of producing strong commitment to a single idea or plan—might actually be what makes it uniquely valuable. By uniting around the crimes of Ben Ali and Mubarak, the much more difficult political question of what kind of government was to succeed him could be deferred until later.

H/T: The Dish

May 27, 2011

The Many Nuances of the Arab Spring

by Vince

Jeffrey Goldberg at TheAtlantic has a fine piece in this month’s issue on the many shades of the Arab Spring revolutions and how America fits into that mix. It is worth a full read but I will give my thoughts:

Throughout his piece, Goldberg delves into the matchstick nation that started the Arab Spring: Tunisia. He also explores the nuanced group, The Muslim Brotherhood, and how he is unsure whether they are good for the future of many Arab nations post-Arab Spring.

Ben Ali’s (former leader of Tunisia) wife, Leïla Trabelsi, an arriviste hairdresser who would dispatch government airplanes to Saint-Tropez for shopping trips, carried herself as if she were the uncrowned queen of Carthage. Her daughter and son-in-law maintained a mansion of extraordinary size and tackiness on the Mediterranean, whose grounds included a very Uday Hussein–esque enclosure for a pet tiger named Pasha. On at least one occasion they sent a government aircraft to Europe to fetch their favorite frozen yogurt. Before they fled to Saudi Arabia, Ben Ali and his wife reportedly looted the Central Bank, taking as much as a ton and a half of gold bullion. All told, the family may have stolen billions of dollars from the treasury. Thirty percent of young people in Tunisia are unemployed.

One of the main threads in this piece is the careful picking and choosing of who America sides and supports and who it leaves behind. I wondered about this in a previous post but Goldberg does a good job exploring these tough questions:

And of course, American diplomats understood that there was utility for the United States in maintaining close relations with Ben Ali. Like Mubarak (and even the late-stage Qaddafi, who enjoyed a several-year period of détente with the U.S.), Ben Ali was a foe of Islamic radicalism, and his intelligence services provided not-inconsequential help in the American campaign against al-Qaeda. “Whenever we raised issues of political freedom or corruption, the answers were always the stock answers: ‘We’re threatened by the Islamist party, we’re facing extremists, you Americans don’t understand that we’re your only true friends.’”

Of course, various American administrations, embracing the “realist” notion that stability in Middle East countries brought about through repression could be maintained in perpetuity, accepted Ben Ali’s self-interested analysis of his centrality to the struggle against terrorism, even though Tunisia has the most secular of North Africa’s populations, and one of the most highly educated.

The Jordanian monarchy represents the sort of regime the United States finds itself defending. It is not the most difficult regime in the Middle East to defend—throughout the early stages of the Arab revolt, Bahrain’s royal family, engaged in the often violent suppression of the country’s Shia majority, was the problem child of the American monarchy-maintenance program—but Jordan is still governed in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of Tahrir Square, a spirit appropriated by President Obama and Secretary Clinton whenever they speak of the Arab desire for democracy.

Hillary Clinton, as one would expect, doesn’t think much of the charge that the administration is engaged in a sustained campaign of hypocrisy. As the administration’s point person on the entire set of issues roiling the Middle East, she is perceived in dramatically divergent ways. In Cairo, many democracy activists believe she was overly coddling of Mubarak; at the same time, she is the object of an intense lobbying campaign by leaders of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, who fear, according to ambassadors and foreign ministers I have spoken with, that she has become some sort of moralizing neoconservative. One Gulf official I spoke with asked me earnestly if Paul Wolfowitz, the leading neoconservative theoretician of the previous presidency, was now serving as her adviser. I mentioned to Clinton that she is seen in some quarters as a kind of wild-eyed Wolfowitz. “Oh, no, not that!” she said. “Call me wild-eyed, but not that.”

When I asked her how she squares the inconsistency—working to build democracies in some countries while keeping incompetent monarchs on their thrones in others—she rejected its very existence.

“I wouldn’t accept the premise,” she said. “I think we believe in the same values and principles, full stop. We believe that countries should empower their people. We believe that people should have certain universal rights. We believe that there are certain economic systems that work better for the vast majority of people than other systems. I think we’re very consistent.”

The U.S. needs to work with the monarchies to help them stay ahead of the unrest brewing in their kingdoms, Clinton said, but even if they don’t take American advice—and she was adamant (and the record does, in fact, show) that Hosni Mubarak was offered a great deal of advice that he consistently ignored—the administration will live with what she refuses to see as inconsistencies.

“We live in the real world, and there are lots of countries that we deal with because we have interests in common, we have certain security issues that we are both looking at,” she said. “Obviously, in the Middle East, Iran is an overwhelming challenge to all of us. We do business with a lot of countries whose economic systems or political systems are not ones we would design or choose to live under. We encourage consistently, both publicly and privately, reform and the protection of human rights. But we don’t walk away from dealing with China because we think they have a deplorable human-rights record. We don’t walk away from Saudi Arabia.”

I noted that the Chinese seem frightened by the possibility that the forces unleashed by the suicide of a Tunisian peddler could reach Tiananmen Square. “They’re worried,” she said. “They’re trying to stop history, which is a fool’s errand. They cannot do it, but they’re going to hold it off as long as possible.”

If it is true, to cite one of President Obama’s favorite Martin Luther King Jr. quotations, that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice; and if it is true that history will sooner or later catch up with the Chinese Communist Party, then why isn’t it also true that history will soon catch up with a collection of superannuated desert monarchs? The answer came, elliptically, when I asked Clinton whether she would be sad to see the disappearance of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Not long ago, Clinton had been criticized for suggesting that Assad himself might be a “reformer,” though she acknowledges that Assad is anti-American in some very consequential ways (and not only in his service to Iran). “Depends on what replaces it,” she said, her answer combining disdain for Assad with a realpolitik understanding that some things out there are, despite the promise of the Arab Spring, potentially more dangerous to U.S. interests than certain dictatorships. For people who have known only dictatorship and who yearn for democracy, this is a hard swallow.

Striking this balance—understanding when the United States absolutely must support leaders it dislikes intensely—will remain the key foreign-policy challenge for the Obama administration, and perhaps its successors, in the coming years.


Now, on to the Muslim Brotherhood. I at first wasn’t down on them. I thought the revolution in Egypt that ousted Mubarak was good. However, I am having seconds thoughts:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a global organization with autonomous branches, some more radical than others (the terrorist group Hamas, in Gaza, is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, for instance). There is a diversity of opinion, but those who affiliate with the Brotherhood believe, generally, in the primacy of Muslim law; in the supremacy of Islam; and in the idea that women and men should play their traditional roles in society. They also tend to believe that the West (and Israel, the country they consider a Western outpost in the Middle East) seeks, through conspiracy, to undermine their way of life. American analysts are spending a great deal of time studying the Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere (the Brotherhood’s Jordan branch, the Islamic Action Front, is that country’s most potent opposition political force), and there is some debate, in and out of administration circles, about the true views of the organization, especially in Egypt. Since the Arab revolution began, the Muslim Brotherhood has shown signs of fracturing along ideological lines, but its leaders have proved somewhat adept at playing politics, particularly that aspect of politics in which hard questions are ducked.

It is worth remembering, particularly at a time when the Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to soften its image, that the group’s essential platform remains unchanged. The Muslim Brotherhood’s avowed creed is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I asked Clinton whether she worried about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, particularly as it related to the future of women in the Arab Middle East. “Well, I think we don’t know enough yet to understand exactly what they’re morphing into. For me, the jury is out,” she said. “There are some Islamist elements that are coming to the surface in Egypt that I think, on just the face of it—they’re coming out of jails, coming out of the shadows—are inimical to a democracy, to the kind of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience that was the aspiration of Tahrir Square.”

This was, if anything, an even more measured answer than one expects from Clinton. But in this fluid period, when there is a reasonable chance—not a large one, but still a reasonable one—that the Muslim Brotherhood might splinter, or perhaps even find itself in vigorous competition with more-secular-minded parties, Clinton and Obama recognize that the Brotherhood could turn harsh American criticism into a campaign advantage, particularly among more rural, poorly educated, and traditionalist voters.

Finally, neo-conservative nation building under the frame of democracy seems to be the outlook of America towards the world. I never would have thought Hillary Clinton to buy into this, but then again it might not be a bad policy in some ways:

“What I want to see is the freedom to choose,” Clinton said. “My model would be our own country. Women are able to dress as they choose in accordance with their own personal desires, and I would like to see this available for women everywhere, so that there is no compulsion.” The Obama administration has maintained a flexible, even positive, attitude about the hijab (unlike the French government, which sees covered women, and particularly fully veiled women, as a threat to the country’s national security, and to its cultural identity). In a speech delivered in Cairo in 2009, President Obama, in the course of attempting to reset America’s relations with the Muslim world, even boasted of America’s tolerance for the hijab:

 Freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union … That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

This particular assertion in the Cairo speech was not met with joy by some Middle Eastern women’s-rights activists I spoke with at the time, women who believed that the U.S. should do nothing to celebrate the hijab—something that many Muslim women hope to shed when they come to America.

When Clinton talked to me about the hijab, however, she made clear that an attempt to pressure women in any way to cover themselves—anything on “the continuum of compulsion”—would represent a red line for her. “When people start to say that there are certain things that women should not be permitted to do, and the only way we can stop them is pass laws, like you can’t drive in Saudi Arabia, or you can’t vote … that’s a red line, and that infringes on the rights of women. Therefore I am against it. Any society in the 21st century that is looking toward modernization, and certainly [any society] claiming to be democratic, needs to protect the right to make these choices.”

This was a blunt message, delivered, quite obviously, in the direction of conservative religious forces; the secretary of state, correctly, sees the forced imposition of the hijab as a proxy for the ascendance of fundamentalist Islamism. So I asked her about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of parties espousing ideologies similar to that of the Brotherhood. As winter turned to spring, it was becoming clear in Egypt that the Brotherhood, whose strength was downplayed by most Western commentators during the early days of the revolt in Egypt, was emerging as a power broker of surpassing importance.

On my most recent visit to the Middle East, I traveled from country to country asking essentially the same question of many different people: How could the United States best serve the interests of democracy and stability? Not a single person I spoke with believed that America was in decline; to a person, everyone agreed that American power was potent. Salafists believed it was potent and malevolent; secular democracy activists believed it could be marshaled benevolently. The most eloquent answer came from Ali Salem, a free-thinking Egyptian playwright whose plays and essays were periodically banned by the ancien régime. I met Salem in a café in the Mohandessin neighborhood of Cairo, on the west bank of the Nile. While we talked, various cartoonists, columnists, and Libyan resistance leaders joined us. Salem is an unusual figure, even among democracy activists in Cairo—he is frankly Americaphilic, in part because he was brought to the United States as a young man through a State Department visitors program. He was bursting with ideas about the roles the U.S. could play in the Middle East—in education, in agriculture, but mainly in teaching leaders about how power corrupts, and about building political systems that resist that corruption. “I believe you have a great thing,” he said. “The great thing is, you have a president for four or eight years, and then out. If you are an enemy of the minister of culture and he bans your plays, you will be banned for only four or eight years. The beautiful idea is to limit the damage one human being can do to another. It’s a beautiful idea. Do you know how beautiful it is?”

This all does come with an ironic contradiction (thanks to Joe Lieberman and John McCain for the example):

En route to Tunis, I had stopped off in Jordan, where I paid a visit to the royal palace. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman had passed through a few weeks earlier, to see King Abdullah II. Their visit, I quickly learned, was simultaneously a source of bemusement and irritation for the Jordanian government. The two senators, of course, advocate an assertive foreign policy, and both are associated with neoconservative striving for robust and quick democratization of the Middle East. “They came in and said that Jordan should open up its political space for more parties, and be more aggressive about democratization within the parameters of a constitutional monarchy,” a senior Jordanian official told me. “And then they said, ‘But whatever you do, don’t allow the Muslim Brotherhood to gain more power.’ So they want us to be open and closed at the same time.”

May 26, 2011

Arab Spring Wrap-Up

by Vince

This doesn’t mean it’s over, but just a general wrap-up of what has gone down so far.

February 20, 2011

Democratic Thought For Sunday

by Vince

Andrew Sullivan provides a profound thought on the pursuit of democracy in the Middle East vis-à-vis Libya, Egypt and now Bahrain:

…when was the last time you saw frenzied crowds in the streets in several Muslim Arab countries where the American flag wasn’t being burned? We finally figured out how to help democracy in the Arab world: get out of the way and nudge quietly from a distance.

February 18, 2011

Why all the chaos?

by Vince

Think over why the revolutions have occured in Tunisia, Egypt, and now the showdown in Wisconsin? Much of it shoots back to the economy, food prices, budgets, salaries, pensions, government transparency, and human rights.

While that may be a motley crue of triggers that aren’t homogenous to the naked eye, it may be a scary warning for what more may come from our current state of being.

February 18, 2011

Glenn Beck and Google

by Vince

We all know of Glenn Beck at this point. We know that he can incite vile hatred, violence, and his big one: paranoia. Lately, he said he wouldn’t use Google anymore because he believes it has government (American, that is) ties and was somehow responsible for the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt:

“I’m really not sure that I want my search engine involved in government overthrows, good or bad,”Beck said on his Fox show. “There is a strange thing going on with this search engine and our government. And we all have to choose who we do business with.”

If you actually break down his theories, you would never even believe him.

Steve Benen gives a backdrop:

Wael Ghonim is the head of Google’s marketing for the Middle East and North Africa, and he also helped organize Egyptian protestors during the recent uprising. The Mubarak government arrested Ghonim in late January and held him blindfolded for 11 days. Upon his release, Ghonim, seen as a hero, helped further inspire those demonstrating against their government.

Google is for freedom of speech as China, Iran, and now Egypt are against it. Each of those countries during one period of uprising, demonstrations, or something else has blacked out its internet and forced its people to communicate to the outside world via fax machines. I am sorry to burst Beck’s bubble, but many people, including those who work at Google (who, I might add, are not robots; they have emotions and thoughts, just like us) were against the Mubarak regime. Glenn Beck’s own “university” and TV show supports gold and many right-wing politico’s and groups. Does that make him untrustworthy? It all depends on who you ask, of course.

Steven Taylor wraps it up for us:

This presentation is typical Beck:  vague and ominous with just enough bits of information tossed in to sound like maybe he knows what he is talking about.

Taylor’s advice could just about apply to anything Glenn Beck.

February 11, 2011

Egyptians Inspired By MLKjr

by Vince

I hope that those who started the civil rights movement (King, John Lewis, etc) on a foundation of nonviolent opposition appreciate that their contributions have not been forgotten. Andy Khouri explains how various Egyptian protesters have been influenced by Montgomery Bus boycot comics translated into Arabic:

While we can’t accurately quantify The Montgomery Story’s real influence on the protesters in Egypt or elsewhere, it’s certainly cool that a comic book starring one of America’s greatest real-life heroes has inspired even one person to take to the streets in the way we’ve seen over the last several weeks. That an organization as big and forward-thinking as the American Islamic Congress thought to deploy this work – whose actual creators remain unknown – says quite a lot, indeed, and their actions remind us of the potential power and inherent strengths (portability being perhaps the helpful important, in this case) of our beloved medium of comics.

(thanks M.B.)

February 10, 2011

Political Cartoon of the Day

by Vince

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador is saying something epic is about to go down in Egypt.

H/T: Tony Auth

Tags: ,
February 10, 2011

A Letter to Obama on Egypt

by Vince

A reader submits a letter to Obama:

Because of the close coverage of the Egyptian uprising, it is now clear that American aid to Egypt supports the repressive policies of the government because they are seen as supporters of American policy toward Israel.  This is morally bankrupt.  Israel’s existence is crucial in the middle East- but the argument for Israel loses its power when it’s cost is immoral support for a repressive. anti-democratic regime.  The U.S.’s moral superiority was lost when the U.S. attacked Iraq- it can be regained by removing financial support for Egypt’s government, even at the threat that they will no longer support the U.S. policies toward Israel.  The Arab and Muslim countries, as well as other countries, will admire the U.S. for its moral action- and that will have a far reaching effect throughout the world.  One obvious result is that the people of repressive countries will feel emboldened to rise up against their governments.  For a very long time the U.S. has supported repressive countries to buy their cooperation, creating disrespect for the U.S. in the people of those countries.  Reversing that policy for Egypt will create unpredicted repercussions in Egypt, the Arab and Muslim world and in repressive governments supported by the U.S..  This is an opportunity to lead the world by choosing morality over fear of loss of control.

I am writing this because it is very clear that each and every whistle blower in Egypt will be beaten, tortured and killed, and the U.S. will be blamed for standing by and not supporting the desire for democratic reforms.  Betrayal is the lowest of low of immoral actions.  Betrayal first of the ideals of the American founders and all the Americans who believe in those ideals.  Betrayal second of all the democratic aspirations of the people of the world.  Because the U.S. is so powerful, allowing the fear of loss of control to be the central most powerful tenant in decision making, ignoring morality, will set back the change to democratic structures a very long time- and the whole world will blame the U.S. throughout history.

Yours, Pat Davison – patssav@comcast.net

February 8, 2011

Political Cartoon of the Day

by Vince

Hosni Mubarak gets the quote of the month award: “I can’t resign because if I do there will be chaos.”

H/T: Tony Auth

February 4, 2011

Mayhem in the Streets of Egypt

by Vince

TheAtlantic has a contributing writer that was mistaken for an Iranian in Cairo and was subsequently drug through the streets:

 

I have an Iranian stamp, a tourist visa from 2009. Like the United States, Iran includes a photo of the visa-holder on the visa itself. So they saw the visa, with all my biographical details and my photo and “Islamic Republic of Iran,” and thought they were looking at the passport information page of an Iranian citizen. Pretty soon I was being dragged through the street like a deformed farm animal, and the people around me were yelling “Iranian! Iranian!” while I cried out in my best English in protest. We passed two cafés, and no one even bothered to take a shisha pipe out of his mouth to inquire about me.
The men ultimately delivered me to a government building on the Nile, where a man in a police uniform spoke English and confirmed that I was either a native English speaker with an accent appropriate to his nationality, or an Iranian with an unusually effective ESL teacher. He guessed the former and let me go, but not before telling me by way of apology that there are “foreign people in the crowds who want to create danger and kill Egyptians.” He said roadblocks and crowds along the corniche were advised to hunt down “Iranians, Hizbullah, Qataris, Hamas, and” — because why not? — “Israelis.”

 

It’s incredible that he was able to get away basically unscathed and then able to write about it for the world to see. Its unfortunate during national crises that broad brush prejudices are brought out of the closet and applied so draconianlly and as the author said indiscriminately.

Along with the note on national crises, one of the larger roles of protesting (nonviolently, mind you) is to grab the attention of national and international eyes. They will see despotic leaders order troops to beat up on civilians and cause disgust in the viewer. This was a key aspect of the American civil rights movement. Unfortunately, it can get quite tiresome for the protesters to constantly be beaten and then have the national/international powers remain idle.

February 3, 2011

Epic Picture of the Day

by Vince

Above, Christians band to protect Muslims as they pray in Egypt.

(thanks E.T.)

February 1, 2011

Osama Bin Laden, Egypt, and Us

by Vince

The past week has filled our news outlets with pictures, videos, and stories of the Egyptian riots. What the denizens of Egypt are fighting for is not jihad but democracy:

Middle Eastern tyrannies aren’t falling the way George W. Bush predicted. America isn’t the hammer; if anything, we’re the anvil. But Bush’s argument that Middle Eastern democracy could help drain the ideological swamp in which al Qaeda grew may yet be proved true. Osama bin Laden has never looked more irrelevant than he does this week, as tens of thousands march across the Middle East not for jihad, but for democracy, electricity, and a decent job. It’s a time for hope, not fear. America can survive having less control, as long as the Arab people have more.

Big ups to Bush II. Historian Basheer Nafi adds on:

My feeling is that we are witnessing a second wave of the Arab liberation movement … In the first wave, the Arabs liberated themselves from colonial powers and foreign domiantion. I think now, the very heart of the Arab world, the backbone of the Arab world, is leading the move towards freedom and democracy and human rights.

(Pictured Above: “Sleeping protester at Tahrir Sq. with signs: “people decide for themselves” and “down with the head of the gang” [Reuters])

February 1, 2011

Political Cartoon of the Day

by Vince

H/T: Tony Auth

Tags:
January 29, 2011

Why Care About Egypt?

by Vince

It seems that every time a foreign nation undergoes a revolution,

it is easy for America to ignore it. We can switch the channel on the TV, turn the page in the newspaper, and say to ourselves that, well, we can’t really do anything about what’s going on in Tehran, Tunisia, or Egypt. I have responded in all of those ways before and also struggle with wondering what to think, which side to take, and to what level of interest should I dedicate to becoming an informed participant in worldwide affairs?

I still feel that I am lagging behind in keeping up with the news in Egypt. I had a chance to talk to a friend about it today and was brought up to speed. It seems to be amazing how truly effective despotic regimes can be when it comes to stamping out oppositional forces (see China, Iran, and now Egypt).

Where I am going with this is to the money line: we as America fund Egypt in the amount of $1.3 billion a year. We should care; its our money. Not to mention its a fellow nation under the rule of its despotic leader. Unfortunately, I am left asking this question: will Obama support to keep Mubarak in power solely to keep an ally on our side in a oil rich and tense region?

September 12, 2010

Itching for Racial Division

by Vince

Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D’Souza seem to be both of the same cloth. First Newt:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”

Then D’Souza:

Finally, nasa. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama’s curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. “One small step for man,” Neil Armstrong said. “One giant leap for mankind.”

But that’s not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it’s no wonder he wants to blunt nasa’s space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.

I mentioned last night at dinner that almost anything Obama does, from supporting a mosque at GZ (upholding the 1st amendment) to supporting a world view that includes NASA as a platform for his diplomacy is misconstrued to horrible and malicious levels. I believe this scares denizens back home in the USA because he doesn’t cling first to American desires. But not only does he seem to see things in an international perspective (which some call racist, anti-white, anti-Christian, or colonial), he seems to view politics and change in a longer rage scope. He only has this term and the possibility of another term. Change can begin now but will last into several terms hereafter. I believe that what some see as colonial and catering to the Chinese or Egyptians or Middle Easterners is an act of helping our image and our country – both in the long and short run.