Get PJ Media on your Apple

Obama’s ‘New Beginning’ in Cairo Now a Knee-Deep Mess

Does the White House understand why protesters hate the administration? What about that military aid Kerry just delivered? And will Iran's new prez enjoy legitimacy?

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

July 1, 2013 - 8:16 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

A third truth weighing on the administration is that a government which was quietly slipped $1.3 billion in military aid by Secretary of State John Kerry a matter of weeks ago is on the verge of going under. Will Muslim Brotherhood loyalists be armed with more than just sticks if the ultimatum is ignored and the Islamist “National Alliance” becomes Morsi’s ragtag army? AlHayat TV reported this evening that the Muslim Brotherhood rejected the deadline, saying the rulers don’t need to take commands from the army.

It’s ammunition for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been urging the White House and State Department from the advent of Morsi’s rule to stop sending fighter jets and tanks to the Islamist government. It also brings into question how Obama might similarly support a secular government not viewed in Washington’s eyes as legitimately elected but in need of support to fend off Islamist challenges.

And even though scattering from the Beltway for the July Fourth recess, lawmakers fired off concerns to Obama that his lack of foreign policy prowess could continue to mangle the U.S. reaction in another hotspot.

Every member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), signed on to a letter to Obama on Friday cautioning the president to turn a highly skeptical eye toward new Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani.

Far from a free and fair election, they noted, “more than 600 potential candidates were disqualified by an unelected body of Islamic jurists, leaving only those approved by government-appointed clerics.”

“Iran’s election unfortunately has done nothing to suggest a reversal of Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity,” the lawmakers wrote. “…Decisions about Iran’s nuclear program and foreign policy rest mainly in the hands of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamene’i. Khamene’i has recently reiterated his view that Iran has no reason to normalize relations with the United States.”

The letter expresses the omnipresent congressional anxiety that Obama doesn’t have a grasp on the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program or the wherewithal to accept no less than a totally dismantled nuclear program — theirs, not ours.

“For this outcome to be realized, Iran must face intensifying pressure. This means the full implementation of current sanctions available to your administration, and further legislative steps to close loopholes and broaden our sanction’s reach,” the committee wrote. “…An added positive action would be extending sector-based sanctions to the mining, engineering, and construction-based sectors of Iran.”

“It is important that you leave no doubt in the minds of the Iranian government that the United States will do all it can to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

Perhaps Congress’ fear is stirred by indications, only highlighted by the past couple of days, that yet another tyrannical force will enjoy, in Washington’s eyes, the status of a legitimate government.

“We respect the vote of the Iranian people and congratulate them for their participation in the political process, and their courage in making their voices heard,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement after the mid-June vote. “…It is our hope that the Iranian government will heed the will of the Iranian people and make responsible choices that create a better future for all Iranians. The United States remains ready to engage the Iranian government directly in order to reach a diplomatic solution that will fully address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"“But our position has always been it’s not our job to choose who Egypt’s leaders are,” he added."
=============================

No it isn't but you certainly got in the game early and declared "Mubarak must go" - and promptly backed the muslim brotherhood in their 'quest'. Before that it was "Gaddafi must go". And somewhere in the middle of all that it was "Assad must go".

Who's next?

Well that would be you Mr. President - you must go!

So now I'm saying "Obama must go"! And I'm not alone in that assessment. I don't think the M.E. (or the world) can take any more of this 'we're not meddling' type of meddling in the affairs of M.E. countries.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"Democracies don’t work when everybody says it’s the other person’s fault and I want 100 percent of what I want."

Obama really said that? Wow, he just reads the teleprompter. I have often thought that. He isn't lying, he's just reading.
He describes his own governing principle to a T. Admits they don't work, and just keeps reading. I wonder if he ever thinks about what he is reading.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A long time ago, I realized that Obama will say anything. He doesn't have a gag reflex.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It seems to me that Obama's people have been considerably more vocal in responding to the latest Iranian election than they were to the last one, although a fair number of people, worldwide, thought the last election raised quite a few talking-points. This time, I suspect Carney came out with some characteristic drivel, but he would have been spouting exactly the same platitudes, regardless of the Tehran result. Iran could have an incoming president with horns and a forked tail, for all the difference it would make to Obama's response.

If I were an American, I'd worry about this next bit, too (and being a friend of America, I do worry):

"And the U.S. government’s attitude has been we would deal with a democratically elected government.”

They dealt with Chavez, too, and Ortega. When former President Zelaya of Honduras tried to defy his country's constitution, by staying in office beyond his legal term, Obama conspicuously supported Zelaya, not constitutional government. Ortega did the same thing in Nicaragua (and got away with it) - without a peep from Washington DC. It seems that that "democratically elected" part of the White House script is unusually accommodating.

If Obama is consistently ready to condone unconstitutional behaviour in foreign leaders, why is everyone in the United States so convinced he will actually be vacating the White House in 2017? I get the impression that no-one's yet written a Constitutional Amendment that Obama doesn't intend to snipe at.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama boasted that the U.S. was used to compromise in its democracy because “we’ve had 200-plus years of practice at it.”

Um, I think he forgot about Gettysburg and the Civil War, that kind of righted our ship.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“…I do think that if the situation is going to resolve itself for the benefit of Egypt over the long term, then all the parties there have to step back from maximalist positions. Democracies don’t work when everybody says it’s the other person’s fault and I want 100 percent of what I want.”

On the other hand, when it comes to Obamacare I'll show those Catholic hospitals who's boss.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Valiant try from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but they must realize that their letter will be marked up by Valerie Jarrett before Obama considers it.

I wonder how Hillary will spin this foreign policy failure in her upcoming book.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We live in interesting times.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"“But our position has always been it’s not our job to choose who Egypt’s leaders are,” he added."
=============================

No it isn't but you certainly got in the game early and declared "Mubarak must go" - and promptly backed the muslim brotherhood in their 'quest'. Before that it was "Gaddafi must go". And somewhere in the middle of all that it was "Assad must go".

Who's next?

Well that would be you Mr. President - you must go!

So now I'm saying "Obama must go"! And I'm not alone in that assessment. I don't think the M.E. (or the world) can take any more of this 'we're not meddling' type of meddling in the affairs of M.E. countries.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just think, if Obama can stay in office for the rest of this term, and another one too, he would have the whole world in flames. He would probably blame it on global warming. At the rate he's been going this last year though, maybe just the rest of this term will be more than enough.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
LIAR, LIAR
MIDEAST ON FIRE

"...it’s not our job to choose who Egypt’s leaders are." Not true. By Obama forcing the Egyptian election, quickly, w/o allowing time for opposition parties to form, the Muslim BruthaHood was guaranteed to win.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Pyromaniac-in-Chief's "new" beginnings was always about installing the Brotherhood Mafia into power, as opposed to breathing democratic principles into the stultified nation.
The fact of the matter was that he (and his surrogates) knew full well that Islamism would prevail with his embrace of the Brothers. And this was exactly what happened. Moreover, by "koshering" them in Cairo, he assured their "win".
He set a chain reaction of events, so much so that the Syrian Brothers, "the rebels", also become empowered via Benghazigate, now deep in a civil war with Assad's/Iran's henchmen. Al Qaeda is an offshoot of the "rebels". Think about it.
It is way more complicated, but this is for sure: http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/22/if-it-looks-like-a-cozy-relationship-it-is-one-barack-hussein-obama-his-fealty-to-the-muslim-brotherhood-mafia-addendum-to-coming-full-circle-the-planned-empowerment-of-the-muslim-m/

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The fact of the matter was that he (and his surrogates) knew full well that Islamism would prevail with his embrace of the Brothers. And this was exactly what happened. Moreover, by "koshering" them in Cairo, he assured their "win".

It's as if he had no knowledge of the history of the MB. Is Obama naive or evil? What difference does it make?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
After drinking a potion of Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Karl Marx, Bill Ayers, Benito Mussolini, King George III, King Louis XVI and his own creation, Barack Obama is transformed into the cruel, remorseless, pathological, narcissistic, misanthropic, pyromaniac (clinical reference note #1) Herr Hussein, representing the hidden side of Obama’s dual nature brought to the fore. As Barry he has many friends and, with great effort, is able to affect a pleasing personality, but as Herr Hussein he has become more and more fanatical, more and more dictatorial, more and more scape goating, makes ever longer enemies lists, encourages demonization and dehumanizing of political opponents and becomes ever more isolated and fascist like as time goes by as Herr Hussein grows in dominance. After taking this potion repetitively, he now no longer needs to rely upon it to unleash his worst inner fascist demons.

Clinical reference note #1: Such individuals who lack ulterior motive have traditionally been referred to in layman’s terms simply as a variation of a pyromaniac. Most such maniacs lack conscious motivation although they are fully aware of the acts they are failing to stop or they themselves are committing. Typically they will feel intense pleasure, gratification, or relief when causing destruction or when witnessing or participating in the aftermath. Motivation is also classified as pathological and non-pathological. Some research suggests that feeling such joy at horrific situations is pathological. Other research suggests that some motivation for this comes from rational thought. Taking joy in horrific situations for envisioned gains in political power and/or the concealment of the imposition of devious plans are examples of supposed rational decision making.

I must say in conclusion that history has repeatedly and harshly proven that elevating such a profoundly disturbed man to the highest office in any country is never a good idea. Unfortunately it is a lesson that must be learned first hand in every nation and some of those nations survive and some do not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That whole pleasing personality shtick is baffling to me. I have always seen Obama as a petty and vengeful politician who says "ah" way to much. His annoying clipped speech and poorly-managed facial expressions should be clues to you. But, I guess I am way too un-naunced to see the extremely fine golden threads that he wears.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All