The case of Mohamed ElBaradei and be careful what you wish for

As the 'Arab Spring' was dawning in Egypt in early 2011, perhaps one of the most prominent and loudest voices that demanded the ouster of Hosni Mubarak was former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. Here is an excerpt of an interview he gave a short time before Mubarak stepped down.

Via Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Shouldn't you be headed down to Tahrir Square to try to use your authority to calm people down there?

ElBaradei: I was there once, and things broke out in turmoil. I need to watch out for my own safety. There are people who think they'd be doing the regime a favor by killing me. The longer things continue on this way with Mubarak, the clearer it becomes that the country is imploding both politically and economically. Mubarak must go; not at some point, but now. I believe the Americans are also getting very impatient.

SPIEGEL: You've given Mubarak an ultimatum. It expired on Friday, which the demonstrators dubbed the "day of departure" ...

ElBaradei: ... and I will say it again: He must go away quickly. I'm sure that some Arab country will take him in. I've heard from Bahrain. If he still has one spark of patriotism, this is his last chance.

As Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mursi doubles down on dictatorship at breakneck speed, ElBaradei's perception of the implosion of Egypt in early 2011 is nothing compared to what he's seeing now. As for his comment to Der Spiegel that the "Americans are also getting very impatient," his recent comments indicate that he would like to see that impatience continue but, to this point, the White House has been virtually silent over Mursi's most recent power grab.

Via Neil Munroe at the Daily Caller:

Morsi decreed Nov. 22 that his pronouncements and edicts were beyond the reach of judicial review. The announcement was met by resistance from the nation’s top judges, who said they would fight Morsi’s unusual self-elevation to near-dictator status.

“I am waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the U.S., by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity,” declared Mohamed ElBaradei, who is one of Egypt’s more visible non-Islamist politicians.

This was a very foreseeable problem. Those of us who saw the 'Arab Spring' for what it was had far better vision than the likes of ElBaradei, who is becoming like another in a long line of Arab secularists who never seem to learn that when it comes down to them vs. the Islamists, the Islamists always seem to win.

As for that American (Obama administration) impatience now compared to then, Munroe seemed to sum that up quite succinctly:

There has been no White House response to ElBaradei’s Nov. 24 comments.

To be fair to ElBaradei, he's not the only secularist who was wrong. Just look at practically every Democratic politician in the U.S., a handful of Republicans, and the mainstream media.

It isn't rocket science but liberal secularists still never get it.

For a Genius, Condoleezza Rice not making much sense

She served for four years as George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, another four as his Secretary of State; she had been Provost at Stanford, and is an extremely accomplished pianist. By all accounts, Condoleezza Rice is widely accepted as a genius.

So why on earth is she advocating for what would inevitably lead to Muslim Brotherhood control of Syria? After reading her recent op-ed in the Washington Post, there really is no gray area about where she stands, though as a seasoned diplomat, she does her level best to massage her message. Her position is that Assad must fall and Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Iranian control.

Via WaPo:

The fragile state structure of the Middle East has been held together for decades by monarchs and dictators. But as the desire for freedom has spread from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus, authoritarians have lost their grip. The danger now is that the artificial states could fly apart.

What Rice avoids saying is breathtaking. Whatever desire there is for freedom in the Middle East is being snuffed out by new, religious tyrants who are filling the vacuum left by those "monarchs" and "dictators". Simply put, in every country where the 'Arab Spring' has been successful at removing dictators, things have gotten much worse. Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood leader is consolidating power and that country is increasingly on the brink of civil war; Libya may have elected a secular government but make no mistake; al-Qaeda is calling the shots. Yemen, Tunisia, et. al. are all seeing similar outcomes.

Therefore, why would Rice think Syria would be any different?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very next paragraph:

In Iraq, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the United States hoped that a fledging multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy could do what authoritarians could not: give all of these groups a stake in a common future. To an extent it has, with elections repeatedly producing inclusive governments. But the institutions are young and fragile, and they are groaning under the weight of the region’s broader sectarian explosion. The conflict in Syria is pushing Iraq and others to the breaking point. At the same time, U.S. disengagement has tempted Iraqi politicians to move toward sectarian allies for survival. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki cannot count on the Americans, he will take no risks with Tehran.

Note how Rice comes precariously close to admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake but qualifies it by implying that more time is needed. The notion that the Syrian conflict is pushing Iraq to the "breaking point" is a bit of an exercise in denial. Make no mistake; Iran has all but annexed Iraq and for Rice to assert anything to the contrary presupposes that the Bush strategy still has a chance. It was doomed to failure when the foundation for the new Iraqi constitution was Sharia law; it was a soft surrender.

As Rice points out, Iraq is 65% Shiite; so is al-Maliki Shiite. Counting on Americans would have involved a Constitution that did not have Sharia law. Assuming that al-Maliki was ever interested in true freedom in Iraq, such interest was snuffed out at that point because it meant the Americans could not be counted on.

Rice runs into another problem. Note I did say she only came "precariously close" to admitting failure. Opining that the United States should not support the ouster of Assad would be an admission of failure in Iraq and inconsistent with the broader strategy of her boss, because it would mean that the perceived liberation of people who are ruled by a dictator can lead to greater enslavement, which it has in Iraq, Gaza, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, et. al. Rice almost has to support Assad's overthrow at this point. Advocating the opposite would torpedo the Bush doctrine of democratization in the Middle East.

Comparing Iran to Karl Marx seems to be an attempt - in part - to liken the former to the United States' cold war nemesis. Take note of her reference to a "theocratic flag" and where it flies:

Today’s Karl Marx is Iran. It envisions the spread of its influence among Shiites, uniting them under the theocratic flag of Tehran — destroying the integrity of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. Iran uses terrorist groups, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in southern Iraq to do its bidding. Syria is the linchpin, the bridge into the Arab Middle East. Tehran no longer hides the fact that its security forces are working in Syria to prop up Assad. In this context, Tehran’s sprint toward a nuclear weapon is a problem not just for Israel but the region as a whole.

Few would argue that there are easy answers in the Middle East but Rice seems to be falling into the same trap that so many westerners do. While being rightfully concerned about Iran, there is this inexplicable underestimation of Turkey, which continues to be wrongly viewed as an ally of the West. In reality, Turkey has been making more gains than Iran, in many ways. With every Muslim Brotherhood victory, Turkey is secretly emboldened and its lustful eye for a reestablished Ottoman empire waters a little more with increased anticipatory desire.

While Rice rightfully bemoans the Shia's "theocratic flag of Tehran", she ignores the "theocratic flag" that is being planted all over the Middle East as Turkey quietly sees those flags as representing a resurrected empire in the near future.

Rice continues...

In recent days, France, Britain and Turkey have stepped into the diplomatic vacuum to recognize a newly formed opposition that is broadly representative of all Syrians. The United States should follow their lead and then vet and arm the unified group with defensive weapons on the condition that it pursues an inclusive post-Assad framework. The United States and its allies should also consider establishing a no-fly zone to protect the innocent. America’s weight and influence are needed. Leaving this to regional powers, whose interests are not identical to ours, will only exacerbate the deepening sectarianism.

Certainly there are risks. After more than a year of brutal conflict, the most extreme elements of the opposition — including al-Qaeda — have been empowered. Civil wars tend to strengthen the worst forces. The overthrow of Assad could indeed bring these dangerous groups to power.

But the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk. Iran will win, our allies will lose, and for decades the region’s misery and violence will make today’s chaos look tame.

It is simply breathtaking to consider that someone of Rice's intellect does not understand the Islamist nature and goals of Turkey's leadership. She then talks about aligning with them and arming the Syrian rebels but under the condition that there is a post-Assad framework and that the rebels who are armed can be trusted (because that's worked out so well to this point).

Then, she demonstrates an unbelievable amount of naiveté relative to history, both old and recent, when she says that the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk than the Muslim Brotherhood groups ultimately taking control of Syria. If she was truly interested in preserving the "state system", Assad is the better option.

Does she not know that it is Turkey which desires the dissolution of every nation that has fallen to the Brotherhood?  That would also include Syria if Assad falls.

Rice's former boss - George W. Bush - communicated a similar embrace of the 'Arab Spring' in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last May.

For Rice or Bush to admit the truth would require them to admit failure, which they're obviously not willing to do.

Unfortunately, not doing so smacks of both pride an foolishness.

Time to revisit Hillary Clinton's September 13th speech?

While the talking points recited by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th continues to be a point of interest, confusion, and conflicting accounts, looking at the words uttered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton three days earlier might shed some light on how those talking points got altered. The conflicting stories between former CIA Director David Petraeus and DNI Director James Clapper seem to fall within that 9/13 - 9/16 window.

Again, let's look at the November 20th report from CBS, which reported that the entity responsible for taking the reference to al-Qaeda out of the talking points was the Department of National Intelligence (DNI):

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

According to that report, Clapper's office made the changes between September 13th and when they were given to Rice on September 14th. As an aside, on November 15th, CBS reported that Rice was given the talking points on September 15th, not the 14th.

After Petraeus gave closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence committee on November 16th, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told reporters that Petraeus said he didn't know who altered the talking points and that the former CIA Director testified that he knew the attack was an act of terror all along. One day prior to Petraeus' November 16th testimony, his immediate boss (Clapper) gave testimony that would ultimately be completely contradicted, which caused even more problems for both Petraeus and Clapper.

Via Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

Fox News was told by one source that Clapper, in a classified session on Thursday, was “unequivocal, and without hesitation insisted the changes were made outside the Intelligence community. He didn’t know who but was emphatic he would find out."

A day later, former CIA Director David Petraeus also stated changes were made after his agency drafted the talking points, adding no one imagined how changing the language would end up being such a big deal.

But late Monday night, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said in a series of briefings for reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes to the talking points, which were finalized on Sept. 15 – four days after the attack and one day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial appearance on five Sunday talk shows, when she described the attack as spontaneous violence that grew out of protests of an anti-Islam film.

Uh, but Petraeus said on November 16th that he didn't know who altered the talking points. If that's true, Clapper's office has got to be lying now. Either Clapper's November 15th testimony jibes with Petraeus' November 16th testimony or Petraeus' November 16th testimony doesn't jibe with what Clapper's office is saying now. If we're to believe Clapper's spokesman's November 19th comments, Petraeus may have committed perjury at a time when he should have come clean.

Now, let's go back to September 13th. This is the date given by CBS in a report published one day after Clapper's spokesman said his boss' office is where the talking points were altered. This means that Clapper's office was altering the talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton was giving this speech.

Relevant portions transcribed below video.



At the :37 mark:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation and as you know, we are home to people of ALL religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims and we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose; to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

Then, at the 3:09 mark, after ripping the video, Hillary seems to imply it was responsible for violence:

It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful, to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people.

At the 3:42 mark, Hillary seems to be laying the groundwork for the talking points that Susan Rice issued on 9/16. Remember, CBS reported that Clapper's office was compiling the final talking points at approximately the same time that Hillary was giving this speech. After what she said up to this point, it is easy to see how she is making the implication that the video is responsible for the Benghazi attack:

Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now I would note that in today's world with today's technologies that is impossible but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our constitution and our law and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Of course, keep in mind that Charles Woods, the father of one of the four murdered Americans, told Lars Larson that Hillary told him on 9/14 (one day after the aforementioned speech and on the same day that Rice was given her talking points), that the anti-Muhammad video's filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

It's also important to remember that shortly after Petraeus' testimony on November 16th, Rep. King told reporters the following about how the final talking points emerged. According to Petraeus, through King:

it went through a long process involving many agencies, to include the Department of Justice, to include the State Department.

In conclusion, if both the November 20th CBS report and King's claim that the State Department was involved in altering the talking points that were given to Susan Rice on 9/14, it means that the State Department was likely altering those talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton gave a speech which unequivocally laid the foundation for talking points which ultimately said the video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.

I refer you to Rule #8 from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The events were the attack and the video. Blaming the video instead of al-Qaeda would serve two purposes. One, it would protect the administration's narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run. Two, it would chill freedom of speech and first amendment rights through tacit intimidation that said, if you criticize Islam, there could be consequences.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are very learned students of Saul Alinsky.