Yet ANOTHER foreign policy blunder by the Dems, i.e., Wilson and his 14 points, Yalta, Acheson's speech on Korea 1950, JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis, LBJ and Vietnam, KGB Karter and Iran, BJ Bubba and his "meals on wheels" military program, and of course, Dumbo the Clown and the world.
Anyone else see a pattern here?

More simply stated, Saad al-Katatni wants to create a dictatorship. The cover story is that it is promoting Islam.

Once you factor in obama is a muslim, then it all makes sense. The MB has been to the white house many, many times in the last 4 years. Remember CARE? They have actually written manuals on how our security agencies should treat muslims.
Muslims are like fire ants. They take over and kill of the natural species. They are not compatible with with American way of life.

FYI, its not CARE its CAIR = Council on Americans Islamic Relations.

This is one of several recent examples that shows how enabling or causing "democracy" is not necessarily a good idea everywhere. It may make matters worse. There is nothing inherently virtuous about elected governance. It merely reflects the inherent wisdom and virtue of the culture as a whole and of the active voters at the time. Egypt was better off before, and our interests were better off before as well.

Well well. Looks like Glenn Beck was right all along. Now I'm sure all the people who laughed and called him a "nut" will apologize.

Lol! Just kidding. =)

its telling that obama didn't support Iranian uprising which had a chance for pro western democracy but has supported these assoc with muslim brotherhood.

One of these days we are going to have to kill several million people.

You should sincerely hope not....

Because the only way that happens, is if the folks we have to kill have the capability to kill several million of us.

Wars that are outrageous over-matches - such as the current one - tend to have long durations & relatively low casualty numbers... Asymmetrical warfare is many things, but massively destructive is not one of them...

A war with several million KIA, is a war of equals... Like US vs Russia in 1980 would have been. Most likely involving WMD & attacks on population centers by BOTH sides.

Pray to GOD it never happens...

A defector from Hamas said something to that effect on Hannity & Colmes a few years ago. It was the first and only time I've ever seen Alan Colmes speechless.

Their country, their business...

If they start sponsoring terrorisim against the USA, blow them to hell... Otherwise... Elections have consequences, and the Egyptian people deserve what they voted for.... It's they only way they'll learn....

Should free western society should simply wait and allow a theocratic-fascist dictatorship impose its tyrannical will on Egyptians, further destroying their individual rights? What will become of the Egyptians who oppose the new government's will to impose Sharia Law on its people? Sharia holds that there is a moral and spiritual duty, in both service and conquest, for the cause of Islam; there is no escaping that reality. The deaths of millions and millions who opposed Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Leopold II, Enver, Pol Pot, and Sung are a testament to what will indeed happen to those who will not follow Sharia Law. Yes, elections have consequences. However, religious and racial genocide should not be one of them.

The people of Egypt are entitled to vote for whatever legal system they wish to impose...

So far (unlike the prior regime) all evidence points to the fact that they WANT Islamic law. In my opinion, they thus deserve it.

After a decade or two of living under that, maybe they will be ready for a Western-style constitutional republic - or at least a secular parlimentary democracy (since legitimate 'Constitutional Republics' tend to only exist in nations the US has defeated & occupied - such as Germany & Japan. The rest of the world uses the British model of elected governance (or the French 'hybrid' of the two))...

At that time, they will either vote for it, or have another revolution.

But as long as the people of Egypt think Sharia is a good idea, they deserve to live under it.

IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY'LL LEARN.

Their election was after Obama helped overthrown the former elected officials. Overthrowing an US alliy also has consequences.

I'm sorry, but 'elected' only counts if there's actually a free & fair election.

By your logic, Saddam was the 'legitimate, elected leader of Iraq'....

And the tourism trade (which was the 2nd largest source of international income in Egypt after the Suez Canal) will now crater leaving multitudes in even further poverty.

Obama, like KGB Karter, got played for the fools they are. "MILESTONES," by Qutb, laid out the MB's plan and KGB Karter started it and Obama moved the ball down field for them.

I know some types of people here will disagree with me, but I think the Arab Spring will be a positive thing, not even having to wait 'till the long-term, but medium-term.

Having said that, Islam is a religion that has absolutely no consideration of liberty, and you can definitely see that here.

You may be right, s14, in the sense that Obama's feebleness and ineptitude have turned the clock ahead on Islamist plans to drive Israel off the peninsula and force the ultimate submission of the infidel Jews and Christians. Yeah, it's a good thing.

Islamists may be willing to accept the submission of Christians (I personally believe they will not), but they do NOT want the submission of the Jews, they will only accept the annhiliation of the Jews--nothing less!!! And, I am convinced that after they destroy Israel they would demand conversion of all Christians or death! This may not be true of all Muslims, but the Islamists will also kill any Muslims who speak against their goals once they have enough power to force the conversion of large numbers of people. And, don't think you can negotiate with them. The Islamist faction are fanatics and will never compromise. If they appear to compromise it is because they know they are still to weak to force the issue, but they will never give up on their final goal.

The Arabs do not have (and will likely never have) the military capability to do as you describe.... Israel can take care of herself just fine....

As for the Egyptians.... If they want to hack shoplifter's hands off & stone people for adultery, it's their country & they voted for it...

Freedom starts with free will... Sometimes you have to make some dumb choices to learn why they're dumb... In this case, the Egyptians voted for this & now they will live with it... The notion that they should never have been able to make the choice, is absurd...

Now, if they abuse their freedom-to-choose & opt for attacks on the USA... Well, then we have a problem... But one we have a very effective solution for...

So, how's that asymetrical warfare and multiculturalism working out for you?

The US has the most skilled & experienced counterinsurgency force on the planet...

Asymmetrical Warfare sounds cool, the practice is much more difficult to carry out for the 'weak side' of that game against an 'aware' opponent & the US plays 'Asymmetrical' very well too after years of practice... Same for Israel.

As for 'multiculturalism', that has nothing to do with the fact that if we support the general concept of elected governance world-wide, we have to understand that not everyone will vote for the same Constitution & principles that Americans do/did...

Egypt's government's positions mirror public-opinion in Egypt, as far as we can tell via polls.... The people are getting what they voted for, and the only legitimate way to change their minds is to let them experience it...

For example, if Iran ever has free & fair elections (will take an armed revolution to get there, btw) 'Theocracy' will not be a winning option, because they've experienced it & know where that leads... Without the 79 revolution, they may well have voted for it...

I get it. And yes, I support the right of self determination everywhere. Also, I doubt that an MB run Egypt and Libya together could last six days in a war against the US, hence terrorism. Still, once Persians and Arabs, Shia and Sunni start cooperating some, the energy from all that hatred is going to focus somewhere (3 guesses where). I'm really positing a continued, but better organized and more persistent pain in the ass, not the prospect of ending up with a sword over my neck. Still, if Fraknuts is re-elected, those who would do us harm stand to gain. That scares me. Wildcards don't help the calculus.

fredflintlock

Sunni & Shia will never cooperate.

The Sunni see the Shia as heretics... It's the same fight as Catholic vs Protestant was for Christians, back when we fought 30 to 100 year wars over the subject (For Catholics, it was the line of Peter (original hereditary Popes), For Shia it's the line of Mohammed (hereditary Imams. There were 12 or 7 depending the sub-sect, although one 7-er sect claims to be led by a modern-day descendant of Mohammed.))

The Persian vs Arab issue is more flexible, within religious sects - eg, Arab Shia will cooperate with Persian Shia (As we saw in Iraq, with Al Sadr & the Iranians)... But you will NOT see Persian Shia cooperate with Arab Sunni... There will never be a complete unification of Islam under one fundamentalist banner - the different sects & ethnicities hate each other too much....

I know I'm not surprised by anything he has done, he stated in his book how he would act under certain circumstances and iirc he also told us who he wanted & liked to associate with.

I watched "2016: Obama's America" last night with my wife and 13 year old daughter. After watching it, I told my wife that it made complete sense why Obama didn't want to attack the Libyans that were terrorizing the compound: as the movie identifies him as an anti-colonialist (based on what Obama wrote in "Dreams From My Father"), he sympathizes with them. In his speech at the University of Cairo, he empowered them. Anyone that didn't see this coming needs to see what Obama is really all about. Let's see...Egypt's new leader is a Muslim and now months later the Muslim Brotherhood calls for Sharia Law.

The Muslims are truly patient people...they will wait and wait to get what they want.

If Obama is re-elected, the drastic cuts in U.S. defense will empower the Muslims even more to commit bolder and bolder acts of terror.

The fact that Egypt and Libya are controlled by Muslims, together with Iran they can control the export of oil. All the while Obama stopped domestic oil production as much as he can.

If this sounds complicated, I believe that it illustrates how dangerous Obama truly is for America. Can I prove it? Probably not, but it certainly looks like the pieces are falling into place.

I believe the green or renewable energy is a disguise for making America even MORE dependent on foreign oil. It seems understandable that Obama wants America less dependent on foreign oil, but in reality won't this make it more expensive by keeping American oil from flooding the market, and allowing the Muslim nations to profit even MORE from their main natural resource?

I guess it comes down to this: there is a simple, very real and very scary explanation why Obama has allowed Egypt and Libya to become Muslim nations. I think he's done the very minimum to help him get re-elected so that he can get the flexibility he told Medvedev to tell Putin about.

I also predict that Obama will do NOTHING to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. At least until he leaves office in January.

Clearly, Paul Ryan was right...

“If you look around the world, what we are witnessing is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.”

Actually, we are seeing the Obama foreign policy come to fruition....as sad as that is.

I agree. It is incorrect to say that Obama's foreign policy is unraveling. We are seeing the natural fruition of his efforts.

You'd have a really hard time convincing 47% of the American electorate that it was done on purpose. Even if Israel was forced to turn Tehran into glass to ensure the survival of the Jewish homeland.

To say that the policy is coming to fruition does not necessarily mean that Obama intended the results he got. In many ways the administration is blinded by his own ideology and bias. In another big way, he and his administration are simply inept at diplomacy and a basic understanding of power.

kipling You hit the nail on the head there.

While what you're saying might be true, I don't believe that trying to pressure Israel into returning to her '67 borders was not done without purpose.

Yes, many of his actions were done with a particular purpose in mind. What I am saying is that the results he is now reaping are not the results he thought he would achieve.

True. But a little more insight as to his purpose might be revealed if the LA Times would release the 2003 video of the party Obama attended, along with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, for radical Islamist activist Rashid Khalidi.

That tape might be very enlightening as to his true intentions. It very well could change the whole paradigm through which many view the President.

In that context, I believe we are in complete agreement. Contexture would necessarily facilitate a shift in the paradigm, and a clear majority of the American electorate would find his worldview repulsive.

This is a wholly unexpected and truly shocking development that no one could have foreseen... Oh and it's probably Bush's and/or Romney's fault.

We predicted this would happen when Obama threw Mubarak under the bus. I remember seeing videos late last year or early this year showing the Islamists burning Coptic Christian Churches. They don't believe in religious tolerance in Egypt.
Do you remember Obama's NASA outreach program to Muslims? All of these countries turning into radical Islamist countries was predictalble.

Does anyone know if Hosni Mubarak has passed away? I remember hearing months ago that he was on his deathbed but never heard if he did pass away.

Mubarak belongs under the bus. Protecting 'strong-man' dictators plays right into our enemy's propaganda....

The US is not the re-establishment of the Knights Templar - we are not crusaders & 'protectors of Christendom' as much as Al Queda likes to claim that we are... We act in our own self-interest, and in this case our national interest was advanced by Mubarak & Qaddafi being ousted...

You will note that there was NO US SUPPORT for the rebels in Bahrain... Why? Because they were taking orders from Tehran...

Has Obama botched the opportunities presented by these revolutions? ABSOLUTELY...

Should we have supported the dictators? Oh HELL NO.

Mubarak spent his whole life fighting against radical Islam. He probably did more to suppress radical Islam than any other man on Earth. Gaddafi renounced his WMD program and was cooperating with the West on many issues. Getting rid of those guys was a major strategic blunder. We're already paying for it.

Mubarak's rule encouraged the growth & spread of anti-American radical Islam by providing a major propaganda-point for Al Queda.

Remember: AQ was a merger of Egyptian and Saudi terrorists, when it got started (Egyptian Islamic Jihad + Bin Laden's Muj group -> 'The Base of the Islamic Jihad' -> their full name, if you translate to Arabic)... Mubarak was in power at the time...

What Mubarak did, was protect his own power against Islamic groups inside Egypt... Which is essentially irrelevant to our interests... When those groups go into exile & form an Anti-American terror group... That is detrimental to our interests...

As for Qaddafi, the fact that he got scared (because of all the American blood on his hands, he might be next) and gave up his WMD program is irrelevant.

He supported terror attacks against the US.

He at best did nothing to stop the free flow of Lybian fighters to Iraq, and at worst encouraged it.

We are better off without him.

Gaddafi was dangerous and untrustworthy.

On the other hand, Mubarak probably ought to have stayed. But the military and Muslims made that impossible, with a little push from Hillary.