Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton.  When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally.  During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq.  She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength.  I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.

Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt.  Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities.  President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year.  To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel.  One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.

Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran.  Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.

Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs:  Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government

Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due.  Hillary made the right comments today about Iran.  The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009.  Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House.  Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best.  Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears. 

More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide.  We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran.  Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled.  The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces.  We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran.  Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority.  Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.

"Clap On, Clap Off": Is the light on at the DNI?

"Clap on, Clap off . . . way off on Muslim Brotherhood"

When Congress is in session, crowds in the gallery, when allowed to observe, are reminded to hold their clapping until the session concludes.  If only the White House could have held its Clapper until the end of a hearing on Capitol Hill today.  Instead, the Obama administration made the unfortunate decision to allow Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to answer questions and deliver his assessments of the situation in Egypt without the much-needed benefit of a teleprompter.  

 DNI Clapper, as widely reported, testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had worked peacefully for the "betterment of the political order" and, in a whopper that would have caused Pinocchio great nasal growth pains:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

 So far out in left field was this assessment, that the White House rushed to correct DNI Clapper's mind-boggling inaccuracy.  A DNI spokesman clarified later today that DNI Clapper was aware the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious, not secular, organization, but that it had largely operated in Egypt in a secular manner under Hosni Mubarak's rule in that country.  What he failed to explain in the hearing was WHY Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood under his thumb for 30 years.  The reason of course, is that the Brotherhood, when speaking to gullible Western media, portrays itself as a minor secular political party with no clout in Egypt, dedicated to building hospitals and other social projects to save humanity.

The peaceful hospital-building political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt welcoming Egyptian voters on election day in September 2011. 

When one speaks with Egyptians and other citizens in the Middle East, or if one watches Al Jazeera for 10 minutes, one can learn very quickly that the reason the Brotherhood builds hospitals is because the Brotherhood creates a demand for emergency medical facilities by fomenting terrorism and anti-Semitism with a violent tinge to it.  People get hurt around the Brotherhood.  Ask Anwar Sadat whether the Brotherhood "eschews violence", and it might help explain why Mubarak used an iron fist to limit the group's activities in Egypt for decades.  Read the words of the Brotherhood's supreme religious leader and decide for yourself if the "secular political party" is a benign entity as DNI Clapper testified today.  Judge for yourself if the Brotherhood, in its ideology and goals, is any different than al Qaeda, which the Brotherhood allegedly claims is an abomination of Islam.  For a group that is so tightly embracing Hamas that it is impossible to determine where Hamas ends and the Brotherhood begins, its faux condemnation of al Qaeda is ripe with comedic value
beyond anything even the Onion could concoct.

What is most disturbing about DNI Clapper's testimony isn't simply that it was inaccurate, which it clearly was, but that it is in direct conflict with assessments of the Brotherhood produced by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not merely in the U.S. but among all of our key allies across the globe.  Simply stated, no agency in an allied country has ever assessed the Muslim Brotherhood as anything but a terrorist organization that has participated in violence, directly and through financing and recruitment.  DNI Clapper must know this.  The CIA's and FBI's assessments of the Brotherhood are nothing like what DNI Clapper presented today.  It is no wonder he is backing away from his testimony at a speed only Usain Bolt has experienced among mortals.

We must wonder why DNI Clapper, who should know very well the intelligence (that is the "I" in DNI, after all!) the CIA, FBI, and others have gleaned about the Brotherhood, would testify that the group is of little concern and is a bit player in the "revolution" taking place in Egypt since January 25.  Members of Congress in attendance at today's hearing should obtain for themselves the assessments of the Brotherhood from the intelligence and law enforcement agencies DNI Clapper is supposed to listen to, and brief the Obama administration accordingly.  Clapper clapped on about the humanitarian achievements of this terror-sponsoring group, and then he clapped off when one of his staffers with access to simple intelligence sources, such as Google, discovered that no one in the intel industry, except perhaps himself, believed a word of the fiction that the Brotherhood is benign.  Clearly his testimony was politically motivated. Somehow, in all of this Clapping on and off, we must hope and pray that a light came on somewhere in the administration to reveal the very real threat to Egypt and Israel the Brotherhood presents, and that no real political power will be afforded it before or after Egyptian elections are held to replace Mubarak.

An Egyptian Urges Obama to Chill

The White House seems determined to encourage the loudest voices in Egypt to push Hosni Mubarak to relinquish the reins of Government. Perhaps White House and State Department staffers have been too enthralled by the beatings inflicted on U.S. reporters to notice that the real beating is being inflicted upon the true Egyptian voices for democracy and meaningful reform who initiated the first peaceful protest that has since been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. The New York Times would have us believe the Brotherhood has little clout and should not be taken seriously.

That's not what a prominent Egyptian, who knows a bit more about conditions in Egypt than the college professor writing for the NYT, thinks. His reasons for telling President Obama to slow down and back off are presented here.

At this point, no one knows whether the protests in Cairo will be a step toward democracy or a step toward a radical Islamist regime. Calling for Mubarak to turn his government over to an uprising that has yet to be defined is ill-advised and reckless.

According to this well-informed businessman, Egypt will descend into chaos if President Obama, and some "conservatives" such as Senator John McCain, continue their knee-jerk reactions to the protests by pushing Mubarak for an immediate transfer of power. The link above leads to an excellent overview of who was protesting what, and when, and what is at stake for Egypt, the region, and the U.S.

Obama Legitimizes Muslim Brotherhood One Day, Brotherhood Vows War with Israel the Next

One day after stating to a global audience that many groups, including the radical Muslim Brotherhood, should play roles in governing post-Mubarak Egypt if they would swear off violence, the Brotherhood dropped any charade of peaceful intentions by assuring they would cause Egypt to withdraw from it's peace treaty with Israel.

Apparently a decade of intelligence reports naming the Brotherhood as a terror sponsor and supplier wasn't enough to convince the President they really meant it when they said they want to establish a global Islamic caliphate on the smoking ruins of Israel, so the Brotherhood had to spell it out clearly for him today. Good luck Mr. President. Your diplomatic relations with a provisional Egyptian government will be very productive with such level-headed beheaders as the Muslim Brotherhood playing a role in Egypt's power structure.

Timing is Everything in Middle East Revolutionary Uprisings

Is it mere coincidence that revolutionary uprisings bearing high global stakes seem to occur when the U.S. is led by foreign policy-weak Democratic Presidents and Secretaries of State?  Jimmy Carter never saw the Ayatollah Khoemeni and his radical Islamic followers for what they were, and as a result, Iran never attained freedom and democracy that seemed possible when the initial protests against the Shah began.  The product of Carter's waffling was a radical Islamist state bent on Israel's destruction and supplying anti-American terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East to the present day.

Today we see the same thing happening in Egypt.  What may have begun as an uprising against Mubarak and for freedoms and democracy is rapidly being hijacked by Islamic radicals, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.  Intel experts worldwide have long identified the Brotherhood as a spawner of terrorist organizations, with ties to everyone from Hizbollah to al Qaeda.  Yesterday, President Obama described the Muslim Brotherhood as a political entity in Egypt that should have a say in the future governance of that nation.  President Obama is on the same floundering path that Jimmy Carter trod on the way to losing Iran, perhaps forever, to radical, Israel-threatening Islamists.

This column in the Washington Post warns that George W. Bush was right about supporting true democracy in the Middle East and that its peoples have an inborn desire for freedom  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html.  What freedoms will the Muslim Brotherhood establish or protect?

It is most unfortunate that the revolutionary spirit and uprisings for freedom in Iran and Egypt did not occur when Presidents were in office who could see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for what they are, terrorist sponsors and suppliers.  The Democrats thought George W. was a pie in the sky dreamer, or worse, for his fundamental belief that freedom and democracy in the Middle East is the long-term solution to global terrorism.  Now, when given an opportunity to further democracy in Egypt, President Obama ignores the lessons of the past and embraces a radical Islamist group hijacking a revolution and steering it toward Iran part II.

Similar revolutionary uprisings are sprouting in Jordan. Lebanon appears to have already been lost to Hizbollah rule, controlled by Iran and Syria.  If President Obama fails to stand with true revolutionaries for democracy in Egypt, and perhaps eventually in Jordan, against radical Islamist takeover, the ability to act will be taken from him just as it was from Jimmy Carter as he meekly allowed Iran to be taken hostage by Islamic militants, along with the ill-fated U.S. Embassy staff.