"Members who threatened to leave the assembly also included former Arab League chief and one-time presidential candidate Amr Moussa, assembly spokesman Wahid Abdel-Meguid, liberal politician Ayman Nour, and constitutional law professor Gaber Gad Nassar. On Saturday, the Liberal Wafd party and representatives of Egypt's churches also withdrew from the assembly. The assembly has already suffered a number of withdrawals since 11 June, when the Egyptian Bloc parties – including the Free Egyptians, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party and the leftist Tagammu Party – initiated a walk-out, followed by the Karama Party, the Socialist Popular Alliance Party and the Democratic Front Party, to allow greater representation for women, young people and Coptic Christians, while also registering their objection to "Islamist monopolisation" of the assembly. " Ahram Online
---------------------------------------------
The Obama administration is well on its way to realization of their apparent goal of creating an "authentic" Islamist government in Egypt.
This is on a par with the Obama Administration drive to destroy secularism in Syria and any number of other countries from Afghanistan to Morocco.
Well, when you are advised by neocons and kids still wet behind the ears, what should you expect? pl
PS - TWV. Yes, I voted for him, but not for his foreign policy.
Romney, and the holdover Bushites that backed him on his foreign "thoughtS", would certainly be even worse! That made voting for Obama relatively easy!
Posted by: Al Spafford | 19 November 2012 at 06:57 AM
Is there any real difference between a military dictatorship and a religious dictatorship other than from the US point of view, the military one is easier to buy??
Egypt has never been a secular democracy. Thats for the hashish smokers.
Posted by: r whitman | 19 November 2012 at 08:05 AM
r. whitman
I have known lots of imams, qadis, muftis, etc who were easy to buy. these Islamists will be for sale or rent as well. the big difference in these governments wil lbe their lacl of toleration for the secularists, Christians, women's groups and all the folks who made the revolution. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 19 November 2012 at 09:58 AM
OK, this seems to be going on. But who's pulling the strings directing this idea from our end?
It seems self destructive of any of our interests no matter where in the political spectrum you're coming from.
Posted by: John Minnerath | 19 November 2012 at 10:09 AM
John Minnerath
Children. Some are actually kids. Some are just childish. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 19 November 2012 at 11:09 AM
I remember that the previous military dictatorship in Egypt did not have much tolerance for the Muslim Brotherhood. Its the Egyptian way of doing politics.
Posted by: r whitman | 19 November 2012 at 01:02 PM
Beg to differ, Colonel. How long would you have supported Mubarak, and to what purpose? Or, for that matter, hang on to the geriatric generals. It is a classic 'between a rock and a hard place' problem, I fear.
Posted by: judith weingarten | 19 November 2012 at 01:27 PM
Judith
we connived in the replacement of what was essentially a secular goverment with a government of our enemies. Gamal Mubarak would have been much preferable to mursi from our point of view and that of the secularists and christians. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 19 November 2012 at 01:42 PM
Col Lang
CNN is reporting that the Morsi's government has been described as being helpful in trying to broker a cease fire in Gaza. And that Iran is the country that is replenishing the Hamas military stores. First is this true & second are the MB's in Egypt in 'cahoots' with the Wahebees Saudis - and as such spurring on a confrontation between Israel & Iran ? Meanwhile Erdogan is calling the Israel a terrorist state too.
When the assault on Assad is thrown into this cauldron it sure looks like a regional war could be underway soon .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 19 November 2012 at 03:54 PM
Well, will the Islamist government shred the peace treaty with Israel? The Arab "Street" would like to know, I imagine. A litmus test of sorts?
Posted by: Clifford Kiracofe | 19 November 2012 at 06:13 PM
Is it possible that, more than connived, we recognised the limits of what we could do to allow him to retain power even if we wanted him, and did a "best of a bad situation" judgement on getting behind a transition?
The uprisings in the region have run the course from relatively painless to Syria, and its not clear to me just how much leverage we have to keep deeply corrupt governments in power while resentment bubbles higher and higher, or that we can stop certain historical forces, unless we want to play the role of the Saudis in Bahrain or worse.
As seen in even Turkey, its not clear corrupt secular governments are going to be able to continue to squash Islamist sentiment by brute force, perhaps its better to co-opt and ensure that grown up governments are in charge rather than post-revolutionary chaos of an Iran, Yemen, or a Somalia type government
Posted by: Chris | 19 November 2012 at 06:50 PM
Chris
What surprises me is that you think "corruption" is not deeply embedded in the culture that most of them prefer. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 19 November 2012 at 07:21 PM
I'm sure that's true. A certain level of corruption is embedded, coming from Chicago I recognise that. But in terms of retaining power/replacing power, something is obviously going on that means that the populations have had enough and in each case established power is faced with holding it at the point of a gun.
My question is, how much is the US driving the change (i.e. Egypt) or how much is change inevitable and we are wisely recognising it rather than getting behind an armed crackdown to keep the status quo? Are we going to arm, intel, and resupply governments that shoots its protesters in the street?
I'm just skeptical that we are replacing governments, and think it more likely we are trying to influence the best outcome of tricky choices for new governments
Posted by: Chris | 20 November 2012 at 05:06 AM
chris
"something is obviously going on that means that the populations have had enough" I doubt that. This is a moment of hysteria in the streets that will pass. Most of the people in the countries under discussion are not politically developed enough to sustain that kind of emotion for long. When the emotion is exhausted they will submit to some sort of authoritarian rule. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 November 2012 at 09:07 AM
" Most of the people in the countries under discussion are not politically developed enough to sustain that kind of emotion for long. When the emotion is exhausted they will submit to some sort of authoritarian rule. " @PL
Can't the same be said of US? It is only a matter of degree?????
Posted by: rjj | 20 November 2012 at 09:39 AM
and number?
Posted by: rjj | 20 November 2012 at 09:40 AM
rjj
Political science induced idiocy. (irony alert) Yes, of course, the Egyptian mob and the American electorate are basically the same. If you believe that you should go live in the third world for a few years until you "get" it. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 November 2012 at 09:43 AM
In Egypt and Syria there was a problem with extreme poverty. In Syria, Sunni were disproportionately represented among the poor compared to the Christians and Alawites. Is there a point where rebellion is a logical choice? Is it good policy to deprive Iran of an ally? Is it justice that Alawites and Christians be driven out?
Posted by: DH | 20 November 2012 at 11:40 AM
That is a gratuitous insult and just plain wrong. I never touch the stuff - political science, that is. The idiocy has other origins.
Posted by: rjj | 20 November 2012 at 12:05 PM
rjj
My apologies. They infest the earth and I am beginning to see them everywhere. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 November 2012 at 12:08 PM
This is true as far as it goes but one has to start from somewhere on the long road to Liberty and Representative Government; be it taking centuries.
Egypt or Syria or Indonesia or Pakistan cannot be governed indefinietly the way Mamluks ruled Egypt.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 20 November 2012 at 12:13 PM
"PS - TWV. Yes, I voted for him, but not for his foreign policy."
Oh, I see.
You voted for his wildly successful economic policies.
You know.....the 14% REAL unemployment, the 50% increase in national debt, the 50% increase in food stamps and on and on...
Anyway, just to show what a good guy I really am:
Have a nice Thanksgiving, truly.
Posted by: twv | 20 November 2012 at 01:24 PM
twv
I voted against Romney. Have a happy Thanksgiving in the Deep North among all those Yankees who claim to have started Thanksgiving. Don't take any wooden nutmegs. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 November 2012 at 04:26 PM
Hard to find a Yankee amidst the hippy spawn and the trust funders (loaded with liberal white guilt).
Posted by: twv | 20 November 2012 at 05:46 PM
twv
I feel your pain. I am too far north here but SWMBO wants to stay here. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 November 2012 at 06:02 PM