I agree with what this man said. Send McCain to Syria since he is such a humanitarian…
President Obama’s proposed military strike means, practically speaking, that the U.S. will intervene on behalf of al Qaeda in Syria. Why is this dangerous proposal being taken seriously by Congress?
If the proposal were somehow designed to save the Christians and other minorities in Syria, that would be one thing. But there has been no announced intention to do that. In fact, as we have argued, the proposed strike on the Syrian regime puts Christians at more risk of genocide. Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt demonstrates that he has no regard for the rights of Christians in the Middle East.
But the proposal goes forward in Congress because very few Republicans are willing to stand up to media-hungry politicians such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a war hero from Vietnam who assumes the high ground in any military crisis or conflict.
McCain, however, said something the other day on Fox News that, in the words of “Jihad Watch” director Robert Spencer, demonstrates his “appalling ignorance” on Middle East matters. This wasn’t just a gaffe but a deliberate comment. More than that, it demonstrates how the media shower McCain with praise and respect when none is deserved.
Spencer notes that Brian Kilmeade on Fox News had objected to Syrian rebels yelling “Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!” McCain shot back: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘Thank God, Thank God?’ That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”
Spencer says that “Allahu akbar” does not mean “Thank God.” It is a war cry that means “Allah is greater” and “is essentially a proclamation of superiority.” Spencer notes it is the same cry that Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members were shouting as they destroyed a Christian church and tore off its cross.
The exchange between Kilmeade and McCain has received more than 240,000 views on YouTube.
What is intriguing is how the rest of the media covered this. Many different publications, including Politico, The Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Mediaite, ran stories about the exchange which claimed that McCain had somehow “shamed” Brian Kilmeade and Fox News, as if McCain knew what he was talking about and that Kilmeade had been exposed as an ignoramus.
This, then, is why McCain succeeds with his policy of going to war on behalf of the mysterious “moderates” in Syria. We have a media that are afraid of telling the truth about the senator when he makes bone-headed comments that have no relation to reality.
McCain’s preference for “moderates” in Syria would be laughable, were it not so serious and coming at a time when America is on the verge of going to war.
Spencer writes, “McCain’s appalling ignorance and Obama’s ongoing enthusiasm for all things Muslim Brotherhood, including the Syrian opposition, are leading the U.S. into disaster.”
This is not necessarily news to those who have been following our reports about McCain’s praise of the Al Jazeera terror television network and his appearances on that channel. This is the same channel that has just been closed down in Egypt for inspiring violence and terrorism. But the media persist in conveying the impression that McCain knows what he is talking about and has some mastery over Middle East events.
In a commentary for the London Center for Policy Research, Jed Babbin says Obama may get a war resolution from Congress because “the Republican ‘leadership’ of national security affairs—at least the only ones who get media attention—is comprised of Obama’s most dedicated allies in Congress, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.”
The key phrase is “the only ones who get media attention.” This is why Obama invited these two to the White House after he announced plans to go to Congress. It was a careful strategy designed to create the impression of Republican support for Obama. McCain and Graham (R-SC) are assigned the roles of providing Republican cover for Obama’s policy. They have performed the same function in regard to his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
In the case of Syria, however, Graham seems to have competition for the role of second fiddle, as Fox News Republican commentator William Kristol has been appearing all over the media (including NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CNN) to argue on Obama’s behalf. It was Kristol’s group, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), that released a letter arguing for a strike on Syria without congressional approval. Fox News commentator Karl Rove signed the letter, as did Randy Scheunemann, a former foreign policy adviser to McCain who lobbied for the Open Society Institute, founded by billionaire financier George Soros.
Kristol’s group has also been critical of Russia for passing legislation to protect children from homosexual propaganda. An FPI scholar, James Kirchick, went on Russia Today television, wearing rainbow suspenders, to argue for gay rights in Russia and complained when his audio was cut off. Perhaps war with Russia is next on the agenda. Obama might agree with that, if the war was based on protecting gay rights.
But remember that the push for intervention in Syria is based on the assumption that Syrian leader Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons. Kristol, who founded The Weekly Standard, has decided not to ask for proof and simply takes Obama’s word on this. This is not journalism, but advocacy and recklessness.
With House Republican leaders endorsing Obama’s policy, it was left to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to weigh in on Tuesday, citing a detailed report by terrorism analyst Yossef Bodansky that the August 21, 2013 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was actually “a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.”
Limbaugh, who clearly has no regard for McCain’s presumed stature in this debate, said the evidence shows that the rebels have access to chemical weapons and may have used them.
Limbaugh is not the best opponent of Obama’s policy that conservatives can offer. So it has to be noted that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out that U.S. Government officials have always known that al Qaeda has been pursuing chemical weapons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the rebels did indeed get access to and use them in Syria.
But whether Assad used the chemical weapons or not, McCarthy argued, “It diverts attention from the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad himself has been.”
Limbaugh made the same point, emphasizing what will happen if Obama’s policy goes forward and the Syrian regime is toppled: “If they get rid of Bashar in Syria, it will be Al-Qaeda.”
To remind McCain and the media, al Qaeda is not a group of “moderates.”
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
The New York Times story, “President Gains McCain’s Backing on Syria Attack,” is predictable, considering that Obama had invited Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the White House for the specific purpose of supporting his proposed military strike on Syria. Obama has also asked the same two senators to travel to Egypt to undermine the military leaders who overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government there.
What is lacking from the media coverage is any recognition that the inevitable result, according to congressional testimony, will be the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and associated terrorist groups in Syria, and the genocide of the remaining Christians there.
In Egypt, right in front of our eyes, Obama facilitated a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, which has been stopped dead in its tracks by a true people’s revolution that has brought the military to power. The Muslim Brotherhood has responded by attacking Christians and their churches.
Incredibly, it seems as if the crisis in Egypt will be repeated, except in the case of Syria the explicit purpose of Obama’s military intervention (as it seems to be developing under the guidance of McCain and Graham) is the destruction of the regime that has been standing in the way of the complete obliteration of the Christians. There will be no one with authority left to rescue the Christians from the Muslim Brotherhood when it takes control in Damascus.
“The problem,” writes terrorism analyst Steven Emerson, “is that anything that hurts [Syrian President] Assad, however inadvertently, benefits those same Islamist radicals we’ve all been worried about…Equally incredible is the fact that, in taking military action in Syria, America would effectively be standing on the same side as al Qaeda affiliate groups who also support them.”
The issue isn’t the odious nature of the Assad regime, backed by Russia and Iran, but the nature of the opposition, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the side of the conflict that Obama, McCain, and Graham want the U.S. to support.
Graham, up for re-election next year, has been labeled by one of his opponents, South Carolina state Senator Lee Bright, as a “Community Organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood.” Fox News host Lou Dobbs seemed surprised by the comment when Bright made it on his show, but noted that Graham and McCain did in fact “try to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back into the government after the military had gotten them out of there.” Bright went on to say that McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee against Obama, had become “a tool of the Democrat Party” and that Graham was “following suit.”
Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative is equally harsh. “John McCain and Lindsey Graham are carrying water for Obama’s pro-jihadist intervention in Syria,” she says. “Step and Fetchit McCain and Graham were at the White House today getting their marching orders from the Dear Leader. There were no Democrats at the White House today.”
She asks, “Which Muslim Brotherhood operatives are advising McCain and Graham? …McCain said today that blocking Obama’s Syria strike would be ‘catastrophic.’ No, Senator McCain, Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was ‘catastrophic,’ and so is backing the Brotherhood and al Qaeda in Syria.”
Geller is alluding to the fact that the Sunni branch of Islam, represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and other jihadist groups, has targeted Syria for takeover. Al Jazeera, now in 40 to 50 million American homes, is their mouthpiece.
Strangely, Fox News figures William Kristol and Karl Rove were among those signing an August 27 letter supporting an Obama military strike on Syria, even without Congressional approval. On Monday night, after his White House meeting, Senator Graham appeared on the Fox News show “Special Report” with guest host Shannon Bream, and he was given about six minutes of virtually uninterrupted time to make the case for Obama’s war.
If Fox News is in the pocket of McCain and Graham, you know it’s going to be difficult for opponents of Obama’s war policy to get equal time and attention from the media. Perhaps this is why Kristol predicts the Republicans, who look to Fox News for guidance and direction, will fall in line behind Obama.
However, largely ignored in this debate are Syria’s Christians, now facing the prospect of genocide. It is not too late to cover their plight.
On June 25, the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, together with the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, held an important hearing entitled “Religious Minorities in Syria: Caught in the Middle.”
Presiding over the hearing, Rep. Christopher Smith said, “The al-Nusra Front, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, has been blamed for much of the sectarian rhetoric and violence, but dozens of the opposition groups ascribe to Islamist or Salafist-jihadist ideologies and mingle with the Free Syrian Army—which the U.S. may now be supporting.”
Dr. John Eibner, CEO of Christian Solidarity International (CSI-USA), went further than Rep. Smith, testifying that the Obama Administration has given a “green light” to Sunni countries in the region “to militarily destabilize Syria,” and that the human rights of religious minorities, especially Christians, are at risk.
Eibner said, “Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey may be beloved by America’s military and economic interests, but all have grave democracy deficits and cannot serve as models for religious pluralism…Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Sunni absolute monarchies. All religious minorities are banned in the former. Nearly one hundred years ago the Christian minorities were virtually eradicated in Turkey by means of genocide. Successive Turkish governments, including the current government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, have taken patriotic pride in genocide denial.”
Christian Solidarity International has issued a “Genocide Alert” for religious minorities in Syria.
It should be noted that Qatar is the financial sponsor of Al Jazeera, a channel serving as a voice for the Muslim Brotherhood that has been praised by McCain for making a “contribution” to world affairs.
Eibner’s comments are not just speculation. More than a year ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. intelligence operatives and diplomats have stepped up their contacts with Syrian rebels” and that the CIA and State Department are working with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and “other allies” on behalf of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Zuhdi Jasser, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, testified that reports indicate that armed rebels affiliated with the FSA raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Syria and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children.
Rev. Majed El Shafie, founder of One Free World International, testified that the Islamist factions in Syria (which he said include Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and al Qaeda-linked groups) “are rapidly overtaking the undisciplined and poorly organized rebels as they have in other countries…” He fears that these Muslim groups will “cleanse Syria of the ‘infidels’—Christians and other minorities—and establish an Islamist state.”
“In fact,” he said, “this process has already begun.”
Is President Obama about to become party to the Muslim Brotherhood’s genocidal process? If so, how many Republicans besides McCain and Graham will join with Obama?
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
There is a picture circulating around the internet showing Arizona Republican Senator John McCain playing video poker during a fake “debate” over American military action against Syria. It proves the fix is in, and we have been played once again by King Barack, his Party, and his Republican lackeys.
To recap, the Brits looked at the evidence and saw nothing there. The rest of the world agrees. We The People have been maneuvered into the fake choice of support for a tyrant, or becoming Al Qeada’s ally. We The People don’t want either choice.
Over the weekend, a Republican Congressman told Fox News there are so many “American interests” in Syria that we HAVE to do something! Really? No one asked him what they were or why, if these “interests” truly exist with Assad in power, they would somehow be preserved once he is gone.
Last spring, the Turks caught the rebels with chemical weapons. Apparently, only We The People remember this; and we don’t want to join their side even if all of THEM in Washington do.
We The People don’t want military intervention in Syria. A Drudge Report poll shows that by an amazingly lopsided 91% to 9%, with over 727,000 people voting, We The People don’t want our country to take military action against Syria.
Of course, a poll of Drudge readers is dismissed out of hand by the “real” media; but there is more on this front. Two surveys, one conducted by the leftwing Washington Post- ABC poll and one by the left wing Pew Poll show by 59/39 and 48/29 respectively that We The People don’t want this military action.
Nevertheless, here we are. The Senate hasn’t wasted any time on this matter. It has just voted to give King Barack ninety days to act. In essence, this means “We’ve forced the Republicans to own this mess, and now we have ninety days to see whether it is good or bad for Democrat chances to win back the House in 2014 before we decide.”
Predictably, the feckless House Republicans are falling in line to save King Barack from embarrassing himself once again. And once again, it’s: We The People be damned! Why not? After all, we’re only taxpayers, not Kings or Lords.
McCain is home from Washington, making his regular rounds in Arizona. He held a town hall in Mesa, AZ a couple days ago. His public appeal in Arizona has been dropping off, so he has to make the obligatory appearance on the one and only talk radio show in Phoenix, KFYI.
The first voice I heard yesterday morning was John McCain, trying to incite a war in Syria.
According to McCain, ‘if the press would just show the American people all the dead babies, then they would be outraged.’ Americans are sick of pictures of dead babies and children, but McRino still believes that propaganda is an effective tool.
Speaking of tools, the local radio hosts are always at the ready to let the dear Senator have an hour of radio time to pump his agendas.
He was careful to use the term “Free Syrian Army” in place of “Al Qaeda”, or “Muslim Brotherhood”. Just for clarification, the Muslim Brotherhood aligned itself with Hitler during WWII. After the war, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq formed their own secret alliance. Congress held hearings on the possibility of an attack from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq in 1965. Those hearings were closed.
The Muslim Brotherhood was invited to relax in the United States while they plotted their next adventure. In fact, they took flying lessons in Phoenix while McCain was a United States Senator. Frankly, it looks as though Mr. McCain has a vested interest in promoting the Free Syrian Army because he spends more time in Syria than he does in Arizona.
Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)
Near the end of a long story about whether there is justification for a U.S. military strike on Syria, CNN said, “Finally, there is the U.S. Constitution, which holds that only Congress can declare war and only Congress can appropriate the funds to wage war. The last time such niceties were observed was for America’s entrance into World War II.”
The constitutional provisions have become “niceties.” In fact, however, President Bush went to war against Iraq after Congress passed a resolution of support. It was not a formal declaration of war, but it served the same purpose. At least Bush went to Congress for a vote.
CNN added, “The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action and bars U.S. armed forces from fighting for more than 60 days without congressional approval.”
As we pointed put in a column on Obama’s war against Libya, the law says more than that. The War Powers Act says the president can go to war on his own only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. It authorizes the use of force only in situations “where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.”
Where is the imminent threat to the U.S. from Syria?
Though out of session, members of Congress, led by Scott Rigell (R-VA), are moving to assert the primacy of the Constitution in the current Syria crisis. His letter to Obama says, “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.”
In 2007, then-Senator Obama loudly declared that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” This is a correct understanding of the law.
At the time of the Libya operation, we noted that Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who had turned into an advocate for Al Jazeera, became an enthusiastic supporter of the war, conducted with the approval of the Arab League and the United Nations, but not Congress.
Al-Jazeera, committed to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, openly backed the “pro-democracy fighters” in Libya, playing down their links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Qatar, the sponsor and funder of Al Jazeera, was the only Arab state to join in NATO operations against Libya.
As Yogi Berra might say, Syria is déjà vu all over again. Once again, McCain, Qatar, and Al Jazeera are leading the cry for U.S. military intervention.
On Tuesday, McCain was on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox News, followed by an appearance on CNN about an hour later. McCain certainly knows how to use the media, and they play right into his hands. He was never asked during these interviews about the legality or constitutionality of intervening in Syria.
In our column, “Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional,” we pointed out that the comparison to the war in Iraq was wrong and that the correct parallel was President Bill Clinton’s illegal and unconstitutional military intervention in the civil war in Kosovo, then a province of Serbia. We said. “Serbia, like Libya today, did not present a threat to the U.S., but in both cases Democratic presidents went to war with those nations anyway, in order to strengthen international organizations.”
Obama is doing the same thing regarding Syria.
“As he contemplates the American response to Syria’s gas attack, President Obama has made it clear that he is consulting international law,” notes U.S. News & World Report. The publication claimed that “a consensus is building that it may be lawful to use military force in defense of human rights without violating international law,” a concept known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and popularized by Obama advisors such as Samantha Power.
We noted at the time of Obama’s Libya intervention that the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine was mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to promoting world government by strengthening the United Nations system.
The only “consensus” in favor of the concept comes from one-worlders who want to supersede the U.S. Constitution.
But Al Jazeera is also weighing in. “The Obama team is said to be looking at the 1999 NATO air war on Kosovo as a precedent,” the channel reported. “Back then, the U.S. bypassed the [U.N.] Security Council and sought backing from NATO instead, using the protection of civilians as justification.”
It’s true that Clinton used NATO rather than the U.N. But NATO, which came into being through a treaty as a defensive military force, had been illegally transformed without the benefit of a treaty into an offensive military force.
The result, as we pointed out at the time, was that Clinton intervened on behalf of the Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Christian Serbs. The result was the creation of a Muslim state, Kosovo, in the heart of Europe.
After the Libya intervention, our media tried to put the best possible face on the illegal actions of the Obama Administration. The media wanted to avoid the issue of whether Obama’s unauthorized attack on Libya was an impeachable offense. The chaos and lack of security later resulted in the murders of four Americans in Benghazi.
At the time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell (KY) said he was depending on Senator John McCain, who had recently been praising and appearing on Al Jazeera, for the answer. “Senator McCain has been to Benghazi [Libya] as I think everyone knows. He is keeping us posted on what he thinks ought to be done,” McConnell said.
McCain had been in Benghazi meeting with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the September 11th terrorist attack.
In a May 17, 2011, column, we tried to explain McCain’s appearances on Al Jazeera: “The only explanation that makes any sense is that Al Jazeera constitutes another channel that can give—and has given—McCain favorable publicity. The Arizona Senator has a reputation as a favorite of the press who is always anxious to get in front of a TV camera. In this regard, Al Jazeera simply constitutes another outlet, albeit an unsavory one, that he can use to promote himself. He may, however, find that it will turn on him—and the West—after Gaddafi is overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood takes power.”
It didn’t turn on him. Rather, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed terrorists turned on Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. McCain would go on to accuse the Obama Administration of covering up what really happened, ignoring his own role in the crisis.
McCain has since called the revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt a “coup” and wants termination of U.S. aid to the interim anti-terrorist regime.
Meantime, Al Jazeera America (AJAM) launched on August 20 with a clip of McCain saying, “What Al Jazeera has done is to achieve what I think all of us want to achieve—and that is to make a contribution.” He was actually talking about AJAM’s predecessor, Al Jazeera English.
McCain apparently still believes in Al Jazeera, despite the fact that the channel funded by Qatar has been booted out of Egypt and denounced for inciting violence and terrorism. That’s only a “contribution” to chaos.
It’s time for the media to count up the number of times that McCain has contributed to the chaos in the Middle East that he now decries.
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
During the summer, the USA television network runs a show about a young spy who travels the world, engaging in “covert affairs.”
True to the title, actress Piper Perabo jumps into bed with a Russian and then hops to the bed of an Israeli Mossad agent. A new assignment for her means a new romantic affair somewhere around the globe.
While watching an episode recently, it hit me…
The character in the show is just like Barack Obama. United States foreign policy lies in tatters, and our president wants to sleep with the latest leader who walks in the door, with no understanding for how it will impact the country in the morning.
The U.S.-Russian “Reset”
Remember the big reset with Russia?
Back in 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, a “reset” button. It symbolized Obama’s hope for improved relations with Moscow.
In short, Obama wanted to reboot US-Russian relations in the same way you might reset a crashed computer. But the policy consisted of the United States groveling to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and spending a year ignoring the usual Russian bad behavior around the world.
For example, during the time of the reset, Russia continued to protect and provide assistance to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
The country moved to protect the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad from United Nations censure, as it aggressively attempted to stamp out a domestic insurgency.
Finally, Russia provided sanctuary to Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who had the audacity to expose how the United States spies on its citizens and its allies.
When Obama couldn’t take it anymore, he declared the reset over.
But he couldn’t stop there. Like a jilted lover, he insults Putin, not just by canceling a summit, but by calling him a slouching schoolchild, too.
By this point, Senator John McCain had seen enough.
On Fox News Sunday, he unloaded on Obama saying: “The president comparing him to a kid in the back of a classroom, I think, is very indicative of the president’s lack of appreciation of who Vladimir Putin is. He’s an old KGB colonel who has no illusions about our relationship, does not care about a relationship with the United States, continues to oppress his people, and continues to act in an autocratic fashion.”
The result? U.S.-Russian relations are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War.
As for our relations in the Middle East…
Backing the Loser
Obama began his first term in office with a much-trumpeted outreach to Islam.
Remember how he toured Arab countries and spoke passionately of his desire for close and cordial relations, even bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia?
Then came the “Arab Spring.” It actually should’ve been called the “Arab Winter.” Al Qaeda, our one-time enemy, became our new-found friend as the United States gave a helping hand to radical Islamists when they captured the governments of Tunisia, Libya, and then Egypt. When the revolution made its way to Syria, the old governing forces of the Arab world turned back the tide.
Now the insurgency in Syria is wracked with internal strife, as Al Qaeda seeks to dominate the insurgency, and we’re left in the embarrassing position of supporting what looks to be the losing side in Syria.
In an unstable region of the globe that already looks like a house of cards, we’ve deeply damaged stability even more.
The Mess in Egypt
In Egypt, Obama was complicit in throwing America’s strongest Arab ally, Hosni Mubarak, under the bus. We actually facilitated the takeover of Egypt, as it was collapsing, by the Muslim Brotherhood – the terrorist organization that murdered Anwar Sadat and has terrorized Coptic Christians in Egypt for decades.
After the Brotherhood controlled the government, they were slowly consolidating power and were creating an Islamic dictatorship with the overt help of the Obama administration.
The Egyptian military watched as much violence and ethnic cleansing as they could abide. Everyday Egyptians and the Saudi Royal family backed the military, as they threw the terrorists of the Brotherhood out and have aggressively moved to restore order.
Relations with Egypt are currently so bad, and we have so little influence, that Anti-Americanism pervades the daily protests. Egyptians who should be our friends are now chanting for the Egyptian military to ally with Putin and Russia.
After sleeping with the enemy, our foreign relations have gone from bad to worse; and our world is like a gas truck around a box of matches. To put it plainly: Obama is a foreign policy disaster of unparalleled proportions.
This article originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
The Obama administration’s call for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt is inexplicable. The trip to Egypt by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during which they called for the same thing is even more inexplicable, especially since both men are demanding answers in Benghazi. Yes, we know Obama’s leanings but why the rush to release these prisoners and not shine a spotlight on them? If the details of an interview with the son of one of those imprisoned leaders is any indication, we may be getting closer to answering that question.
We caution that the following be taken with a grain of salt but considering who said it, we thought it newsworthy too. Here is a direct translation of the key points, followed by some analysis:
In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his hand evidence that will land the head of United States of America, president Obama, in prison. He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country. Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and that the release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected. The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith. Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohammed Mursi. [emphasis ours]
Read More at shoebat.com . By Shoebat Foundation.
Photo Credit: forwardstl (Creative Commons)