Facebook Exchange With Alex Knepper

Here's Alex Knepper's Facebook status at about 4:30 this afternoon:

Psychiatry is the most lamentable, malevolent, tragically destructive pseudoscience that the modern West has ever dealt with. Baseless conjecture built upon a nonsensical dualism -- and backed up by state power.

He had over thirty comments, and I added mine:

Alex: Psychiatry is indeed a medical science, based on empricism, etc. How can you seriously claim otherwise? What is your evidence?

Alex responds:

Donald, you malicious cunt. After playing into that demented, psychotic monster Swindle's vendetta and libeling me on your blog as a pedophile and accusing me of wanting to rape children, you have the gall to ask me a casual question like we're old buddies? Get the fuck out of here and don't speak to me ever again, unless it's in the form of your begging for an apology from me for the horrid way that you treated me.

I guess he's not over that whole "pedo" scandal thingy, and still lashing out pretty heavily. I responded:

If you hate me so much you would have deleted my friendship, Alex. Do so now if you choose. I "played into" it because I thought you were wrong. Have you learned anything?

Alex responds:

Deleting your friendship would be irrelevant; my Facebook is public and anyone can post on my statuses.

What have I learned, though? I've learned that I cannot trust that creepy middle-aged men like you won't be snooping on forums for young ...people to try to destroy a college kid's reputation. There's something infinitely creepier about a middle-aged man snooping into a 19/20-year-old's posts on a gay forum advertised for people aged 14-25 than a 20-year-old having (legal) sex with a 16-year-old, which you were so appalled by. (By the way, since you worship psychiatry, I should note that the DSM-IV says that all of my attractions are completely normal.)

I also have a lostpainting account on a Britney Spears forum, breatheheavy.com/exhale. Would you like to go investigate that, too? Since you're so obsessed with digging into my private (that is: non-political, non-public) life.

If Swindle thought the material was troubling, he should have first approached me with it in private for an explanation and discussion, like any normal person would do. Instead, his -- and your -- first reaction was to think "What a great blog post! Let's write about it and take him by surprise so we can try to ruin him!" That shows your true intentions, and it reveals you for the monstrous, morally-bankrupt piece of shit you are. The fact that you are old enough to be my father only compounds the creepiness. I spend countless hours every week feeling miserable about you people's horrific smears and how they have affected my life. It's like being raped over and over again. I'd rather have been raped, in fact, than have been subject to such a hit job.

My response:

I didn't investigate you, Alex. You're lashing out pretty hard here. At the time, I commented on the debate as a friend. We had had some pretty decent exchanges, and I had no vendetta.

Alex responds:

You may just possibly be more deranged than Swindle if you thought that your post was 'friendly.'

My response:

Go pull up the post and link it. I didn't investigate you, and I said that we indeed had had exchanges. That's not true?

Alex responds:

...You said that I was a "pedophile posing as a conservative," that I was fired in a "pedophilia scandal," that I promote "man-boy" sex, and that I "have contempt for the rights of the most vulnerable." All because I had legal sex with som...eone four years younger than I am.

It's a real mystery as to why I'd take offense to that, isn't it?

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/pedophile-posing-as-conservative-alex.html

....

Here's you: "Alex Knepper has protested ad nauseum that he's within his legal right to engage in sexual intercourse with a 16 year-old boy. And while that may be so (depending on the state, incidently),"

Um, yes, Donald, I follow the laws OF... THE STATE I LIVE IN. Not sure about you.

"there are no exceptions for adult sexual intercourse with 8 year-old children."

This is completely true but also completely fucking irrelevant, given that the guy I had sex with was sixteen and not eight.

My response:

I still stand by the argument, Alex. I think most folks were concerned with a higher law, a moral standard, which many thought you'd crossed.

And that was it. No further responses from Alex Knepper. I gather he wants to protect the cocoon of denial he's built up to justify his pursuit of adolescent boy sex. He still digs Justin Bieber, that's for sure:

UPDATE (8:40pm): Alex updates the thread with this:

Deleting this shit at my mom's request; you've caused enough anxiety to me; no need to torture her, too.

Well, how about that? Alex's mom monitors his Facebook threads? That's something else? Maybe she should have been monitoring some of those man-boy chat threads, and perhaps I wouldn't be having an exchange like this.

True Conservatives

I'm trippin' on this graphic, from Melissa Clouthier, "Should Libertarians Be Banned From CPAC?" (via Memeorandum). It's not developed from Melissa's discussion, but can we say the tea party represents "true conservatism" if large numbers of tea partiers are closer to the libertarian position on defense? I'm neocon, and firmly is the defense and social conservatives circles, but I'm also a tea partier and would like to see more fiscal restraint in government, although that circle's less defining of my ideological identity. Anyway, folks'll have to read Melissa's post to see if she'd boot libertarians from CPAC. (And folks should check Midnight Blue's CPAC updates, while I'm thinking about it.)

P.S. I doubt Dan Riehl would be a "true conservative" as measured by the graph. He's not a big defense kinda guy, but nevertheless touts himself as an ideological gatekeeper.

Democratic Realpolitik and Egypt

From Dr. Robert Bunker, "Realism, Idealism, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Islamic World" (via Great Satan's Girlfriend):

National self-interest now requires that we reevaluate our relationship to autocratic states, both client and otherwise, in the Islamic World and, for that matter, everywhere else. Our interests are now best served by implementing a new U.S. foreign policy approach—one that is sum-sum for our country and the burgeoning masses who live under the yoke of oppression in autocratic Islamic states. Under this new sum-sum strategy, we „play the old diplomatic game‟ and hold our friendly despots even closer while we do everything in our power, short of getting caught (and of course not engaging in crimes against humanity), to seize upon golden opportunities that are now presenting themselves in Egypt and in other Islamic lands to support Democratic revolution. We should not instigate it and we should not invade like in Iraq— Democracy should be seductive, something that is desired and not necessarily forced upon others. If the spark of Democratic revolution should come about spontaneously due to the actions of flash mobs and social network-inspired rioting or is orchestrated from within by more organized bodies, we should support it from the shadows. If a critical tipping point is approached—one in which relative superiority hangs in the balance— and if the stakes are worth it, we may even need to show our hand and threaten or buy off the targeted despot and his military forces in order to make them stand down.

RTWT.

Talk about nuance. Dr. Bunker adds this, for example, "Realism and idealism must always exist in balance, with one not sacrificed for the benefit of the other, if our nation is to remain strong." Yet he warns of obvious and inherent dangers, that some states will succumb to Islamist extremism --- like Egypt today, right? Sure, but see the Wall Street Journal, "Hamas, the Brotherhood and Egypt":

Those who believe that a democratic Egypt is doomed to fall into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands frequently cite the 2006 elections as Exhibit A. But the lesson of those elections is that Hamas should not have been allowed to participate, not that elections should never have been held.

If the Brotherhood wants to participate in elections, it should have to promise to play by democratic rules, respect religious and social pluralism, and honor Egypt's treaty commitments, especially to Israel. And because promises can be broken by those in power, Egypt needs a constitutional system of checks and balances to withstand any attempt to impose one man, one vote, once. Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats.

See also Charles Krauthammer (the father of "democratic realism"), at WaPo, "Toward a soft landing in Egypt": (via Memeorandum):

The overriding objective is a period of stability during which secularists and other democratic elements of civil society can organize themselves for the coming elections and prevail. ElBaradei is a menace. Mubarak will be gone one way or the other. The key is the military. The United States should say very little in public and do everything behind the scenes to help the military midwife - and then guarantee - what is still something of a long shot: Egyptian democracy.

More at Los Angeles Times, "Egyptian throngs have a word for Mubarak: 'Leave!'," and New York Times,"Egyptian Government Figures Join Protesters."

Egypt Crisis Intensifies — Suleiman Could Take Power as Washington Plans for Mubarak Exit

At New York Times, "White House, Egypt Discuss Plan for Mubarak’s Exit":

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is discussing with Egyptian officials a proposal for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately, turning over power to a transitional government headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman with the support of the Egyptian military, administration officials and Arab diplomats said Thursday.

Even though Mr. Mubarak has balked, so far, at leaving now, officials from both governments are continuing talks about a plan in which Mr. Suleiman, backed by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, chief of the Egyptian armed forces, and Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, the defense minister, would immediately begin a process of constitutional reform.

The proposal also calls for the transitional government to invite members from a broad range of opposition groups, including the banned Muslim Brotherhood, to begin work to open up the country’s electoral system in an effort to bring about free and fair elections in September, the officials said.

Democracy v. Stability in Eygpt?

Just posted: "Egypt Crisis Intensifies — Suleiman Could Take Power as Washington Plans for Mubarak Exit."

And from earlier, a big shout out for National Journal's coverage of developments in the Middle East:

The "democracy v. stability" them is picked up by James Kitfield, "Obama's Risky Idealism: Reversing the 'Devil's Bargain'?"

This is a much better analysis than E.J.Dionne's (mentioned previously), and this is especially good:

In the short term, the democratic upheavals in the Middle East will almost certainly spread instability and cause furrowed brows in Washington and Tel Aviv. In the longer term, however, the strategic interests of both the United States and Israel could be well served by the death of the venerable idea that the only choice in the Middle East is between autocrats and theocrats.

“Regime change is coming to Egypt whether we like it or not, so for the Obama administration to continue to back an ill, 82-year-old dictator like Hosni Mubarak would have been both short-sighted and unwise,” said Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The United States should instead seize a rare opportunity to embrace a mostly secular, democratic opposition that is on the march throughout the Middle East, Rubin said in an interview.

And speaking of Barry Rubin, he's got more here: "Whose Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? Answer: Sensible People." Rubin's responding to this at New York Times, "As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear." (And at Memeorandum.)

There are reports that the Muslim brotherhood has pledge an attack on Israel should they come to power, although perhaps the Times doesn't "get" the Internet. See, "Report: Muslim Brotherhood Wants Egyptians to ‘Prepare for War With Israel’." Maybe the Times is feigning ignorance? Wouldn't want some credible journalistic reporting to lead here: "U.S. 'held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood'."

RELATED: Get your kicks watching Conor Friedersdorf self-immolate: "Sophistry And Defining The Muslim Brotherhood, Ctd."

Hey, he claims to have lived in Egypt, so who knows, although the fact that he's posting at Sully's rabidly anti-Semitic blog doesn't much pump up the credibility factor.

Christiane Amanpour Interviews Hosni Mubarak

At ABC News, "Mubarak: 'If I Resign Today There Will Be Chaos' - In an Exclusive Interview, Egypt's President Says He's Fed Up and Wants to Resign, 'But Cannot for Fear of the Country Falling into Chaos'."

Updates on Egypt Protests

Well, it's been another big day in Egypt. Analysts are all over the place on what happens next. Last night, at Foreign Policy, Robert Springborg wrote that the immediate threat to the regime was over and, "The chance for democracy in Egypt is lost." But not so fast, writes Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood." She adds that it's "highly likely but not inevitable that the Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections to be held in Egypt this coming September." Ayann's essay is perhaps the most perceptive and insightful I've read since the crisis began on January 25th. She specifically and succinctly indicates why secular forces are at a disadvantage relative to the Islamists. At any rate, the first clip here includes video of a utility van mowing down protesters in the streets. Content warning, by the way, since it's quite graphic:

Civility Watch: Progressives Rally to Lynch Clarence Thomas

Christian Hartsock goes easy on these folks. God, it's a vigilante mob: "White Political Ralliers Call for Lynching of Black Justice (Sorry MSM, No Tea in this Blend)."

This is the "Uncloaking the Kochs" protest last weekend in Palm Springs. Actually, I think the protesters are uncloaked. Better get those Klan sheets out of the trunk. Might even get a bit more mainstream media coverage out of it:

Ed Morrissey adds this:

Yes, these comments come from the attendees, not the speakers at the protest organized by Common Cause at the Koch political conference, but according to the media rules on covering the Tea Party, that makes all liberals racists, and also responsible for the murders committed by Kermit Gosnell in his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Right?

Or, as Jeff Goldstein notes, "What’s say we string us up some Uncle Toms!"

Chipotle in the Open-Borders Crosshairs

Pretty unreal, actually.

Michelle's got the larger story, "Stop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses."

But dig this comment at the video:

Lets face it, nothing got accomplished by the protesters other than some sheeple got manipulated by the SEIU (basically a communist organization). Who really cares if some ILLEGALS got fired because they couldn't prove that they were legal? The ILLEGALS are still fired and Chipotle is still selling burritos.

Freakin' commies.

Egypt and the Realists

Following up on "Egypt and the End of History," here's this from the Wall Street Journal:

For most of recent diplomatic history, American policy in the Mideast has tended to emphasize the stability of friendly regimes over the democratic aspirations of Arab populations. This approach is sometimes called foreign policy realism. The reality on the streets in Egypt is one result.

In the week since demonstrations began against Hosni Mubarak's regime, that U.S. ally and the Arab world's largest state has been gripped by disorder and uncertainty. Mr. Mubarak said last night he won't seek re-election later this year, though he intends to remain in power until then to negotiate a peaceful transition. This announcement is welcome, though it may not be enough at this late date to satisfy an opposition that now controls the streets. Other than the army, the group best organized to run Egypt if order breaks down is the Islamist and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood.

So much for that vaunted stability.

.....

In Egypt ... the Obama Administration has been caught on its back foot, scrambling to keep up with events. Some of the same people who reviled Mr. Bush for pushing democracy—Senator John Kerry—are now even saying the U.S. should demand Mr. Mubarak's ouster. Yesterday in advance of Mr. Mubarak's remarks, White House officials leaked that Mr. Obama had urged the Egyptian not to run for re-election—another frantic effort to get some political credit for events that were already inevitable and still may be too little, too late.

Now our policy choices are few and risky. How much better positioned would we be in Egypt today if we were able to take some credit for the calls for freedom and democratic change?

As always, we need to balance both goals, the need for stability and the aspirations for human freedom. Actually, I doubt either would be possible with Mubarak in power. But given that American policy on Egypt wasn't ahead of demands for freedom, pragmatism now calls for slow change. Remember to guard against the Islamists taking power, but don't get romantic about our alliance with the dictator.

Planned Parenthood Fires Employee After Video

I posted a video of Live Action's Lila Rose a week or so back. This was before news of the big Planned Parenthood video sting broke. It's huge story. I've been busy with my Egypt reporting, and haven't had a chance to comment. The progressives have been mounting a intense push-back campaign, which has been successful to the extent folks are impugning the credibility of Lila Rose. (Allegedly, Planned Parenthood notified government authorities a week before the Live Action video went viral.) But I watched Ms. Rose on O'Reilly's last night, and she indicated that the Democrat-Media-Complex is freakin' at the magnitude of the national pro-life wave, and any negative exposure has been attacked as either un-newsworthy or right wing extremism. Anyway, if the New York Times is reporting on this now, then Live Action can definitely chalk up a victory:

Planned Parenthood has fired a clinic manager who was seen on videotape advising a man posing as a sex trafficker, and anti-abortion groups seized on the episode to step up their campaign to cut off public financing for the organization.

The manager was videotaped covertly in a clinic in Perth Amboy, N.J., by actors working for an anti-abortion group, Live Action. The manager gave advice on how to get medical care for under-age prostitutes. The tape’s release on Tuesday embarrassed Planned Parenthood, which provides contraceptives, gynecological care, cancer screening and abortions across the country, mainly to low-income women.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America said that immediately after the “highly unusual” visit, its affiliate had notified prosecutors.

The organization said last week that people claiming to be sex traffickers visited at least 12 of its clinics in six states in January and that it had concluded that the visits were a hoax by Live Action. But Planned Parenthood officials expressed dismay at the statements of the office manager in the videotape, and fired her on Tuesday night.

“We were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape,” Phyllis Kinsler, chief executive of the agency’s central New Jersey branch, said in a statement. Ms. Kinsler said the tape “depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable.”

Stuart Schear, vice president for communications of the national federation, said in an interview on Wednesday that Planned Parenthood had “zero tolerance” for unethical behavior and that the behavior filmed in the video was “very isolated.”

“We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture that we have opponents who are in many cases opposed to birth control, honest sex education and legal abortion, and are coordinating with allies on Capitol Hill to defund Planned Parenthood,” Mr. Schear said.

See what I mean?

It's the pro-life forces who're portrayed at the bad guys, and the meme is that the director at the Perth Amboy clinic was an aberration.

I should have more pro-life reporting soon. Egypt is dominating the news and I've been extremely fascinated by developments. So, more on that as events warrant, and then some social issues as well.

RELATED: At The Blaze, "Vid Shows Planned Parenthood Advising Pretend Pimp About Underage Sex Slaves":

Watch This: Leftist Media to Push Meme of Obama as Wise Foreign Policy 'Realist'

It may have started already, but I'm just now seeing E.J. Dionne's really dishonest op-ed at WaPo, "A Conservative Split Aids Obama on Egypt."

What's interesting is that Dionne gets most of this wrong. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter is cited as standing for some large conservative groundswell in support of propping up Mubarak. Even Henry Kissinger was way beyond that possibility the other night, so it's mostly now about how to transition from Mubarak without causing an Egyptian bloodbath and/or a new Middle East war. Even the New York Times notes that the administration's making major adjustments in its foreign policy in light of events, and of course you won't read any quotes from Victor Davis Hanson at either Dionne's commentary or the Times' reporting. Where there's been really substantial debate is among the neoconservatives. And while Dionne's meme suggests Obama's getting a boost by an alleged "conservative split," the truth is more likely that the administration's been dragged along by events, with ad hoc adjustments made possible only after the cold splash of reality snapped the White House out of its stupor.

More at Memeorandum.

Glenn Beck and the Muslim Brotherhood

From David Horowitz, at FrontPage Magazine:

Those of you who have been watching Glenn Beck, and particularly those who watched last night’s show will see that he is bringing before an audience of millions the message we have been sending from these sites for nearly a decade — that the global Islamic jihad against the West has formed a working alliance with the secular socialist left both at home and abroad. This “unholy alliance” as we called it was first clearly visible in the anti-American demonstrations opposing the Iraq War. These were mislabled “anti-war” demonstrations by the general media. If they were truly anti-war demonstrations there would have been protests at the Iraq embassy calling on Saddam Hussein to honor the Gulf War truce agreement he had signed and the seventeen UN resolutions that attempted to enforce those agreements. But there was not one such demonstration. Not one.

We pointed out at the time that the steering committee of the largest coalition against the Iraq War — that is against toppling Saddam Hussein — included on its steering committee the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2003, we laid out the facts in an 80 page booklet edited by John Perazzo and me, called Who Is The Peace Movement? We have updated the information in our online encyclopedia of the left at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/.

Everything we know about the collaborations of the Communist left with the Soviet police state, about the collaborations of the New Left with the Vietnamese and Cuban Communists, and about the committees of leftists in solidarity with the communist dictatorship in Nicaragua and the Communist guerillas in El Salvador told us that the current left would be in bed with the Islamic Nazis who now confront us ...

The unholy alliance between Islamo-Nazis and the American left described in these pages is the gravest threat our country has ever faced.

Obama Rift With Mubarak Alters U.S. Mideast Calculus

You don't say?

At New York Times:

WASHINGTON — After days of delicate public and private diplomacy, the United States openly broke with its most stalwart ally in the Arab world on Wednesday, as the Obama administration strongly condemned violence by allies of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt against protesters and called on him to speed up his exit from power.

Egypt’s government hit back swiftly. The Foreign Ministry released a defiant statement saying the calls from “foreign parties” had been “rejected and aimed to incite the internal situation in Egypt.” And Egyptian officials reached out to reporters to make clear how angry they were at their onetime friend.

Separately, in an interview, a senior Egyptian government official took aim at President Obama’s call on Tuesday night for a political transition to begin “now” — a call that infuriated Cairo.

But the White House was not backing down. “I want to be clear,” said Robert Gibbs, the press secretary. “ ‘Now’ started yesterday.”

The Obama administration seemed determined Wednesday to put as much daylight as possible between Mr. Obama and Mr. Mubarak, once considered an unshakable American supporter in a tumultuous region, with Mr. Gibbs once again raising the specter of a cutoff of American aid to the Mubarak government if the Egyptian president failed to bend.

“There are things that the government needs to do,” he said. “There are reforms that need to be undertaken. And there are opposition entities that have to be included in the conversations as we move toward free and fair elections.” Those elections are currently scheduled for September, but the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said, “The sooner that can happen, the better.”

The open rupture between the United States and Egypt illustrates how swift and dramatic changes in Cairo are altering the calculus of the entire region and the administration’s foreign policy agenda. Besides Egypt, there were upheavals this week among other close American allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, and in the long struggle to reach a Middle East peace. Israeli officials expressed concern that Mr. Mubarak’s abrupt exit could jeopardize the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Maybe the White House is reading my blog?

Obama Approach to Mubarak Exit Questioned as Violent Clashes Erupt

Well, I guess I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness.

From Fox News:

As resistance turns to revolt in the streets of Cairo, some are starting to question the Obama administration's handling of the unfolding crisis in the heart of America's most important Arab ally.

For the most part, President Obama's cautious, but firm, tone has won praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Though the Obama administration was clearly caught off guard by how quickly a regime's ouster in Tunisia inspired uprisings across Egypt and other Middle Eastern capitals, the president was applauded for striking a delicate balance.

He did not take sides from the outset, but at the same time also urged President Hosni Mubarak to fix the problems in his broken government. When the momentum shifted further away from Mubarak, so did Obama, telling the 30-year ruler it's time to step aside.

But something went wrong. Though Mubarak announced Tuesday night he would not seek re-election, the vigil-like scene from that night has given way to a bloody series of clashes between protesters and pro-government supporters.

Analysts and diplomats say the administration now must be even more cautious about what it says publicly, and they worry that the president may have slipped in the way he pushed for Mubarak's exit.

More at the link above. Quoted there is Elliot Abrams, who suggests that Obama should be calling on Mubarak's resignation. Sen. John McCain's cited to that effect as well.

Bush Deserves Credit For What's Happening in Egypt

Okay, a follow-up to "Egypt and the End of History."

Here's Jonathan Kay, from the National Post:

Via Blazing Catfur, "The Least of Egypt's Problems: Virtual Looting."

Egypt and the End of History

Some may have noticed, even in my own writings perhaps, but there's substantial debate over the meaning of events in Egypt for the Bush administration's freedom agenda, and especially for the neoconservative vision of democracy promotion.

Progressives are loathe to admit it, but what's happening in Egypt is indeed a vindication, in broad outline, of George W. Bush's foreign policy, "a balance of power that favors freedom." The administration was of course criticized from both left and right, from Democrat anti-interventionists and Republican neo-isolationists, especially on the use of force. But the fact remains that the larger vision of universal freedom and justice in the world is playing out in Egypt today. (And again, I'm partially bracketing the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamists may come to power, but it will be a detour on the road to natural right.) This has created some divisions among democracy-promoters, as Jeffrey Goldberg points out, "The Neocons Split with Israel Over Egypt" (at Memeorandum). And also Jonah Goldberg, "Wait, the Neocons Actually Believe that Stuff?", and "More on the Neocons vs. Israel." And while it's true that the Iraq war tempered the administration's fervor for spreading democratic values, the statements and values of George W. Bush are finding resonance today on the Nile. (Jeff Jacoby notes the twists and turns, at Boston Globe, "The Vindication of the ‘Freedom Agenda’.")

Most of the differences here deal with the speed and scope of democratic change, and with the need to uphold traditional security concerns while advancing a liberal agenda. But freedom is freedom, at least when defined as universal aspirations for individual rights and human dignity. We see this in Egypt's revolt most powerfully in the viral video posted by Asmaa Mahfouz on January 25th. And it's this broader sense that must cause progressives fits of apoplexy. Checking over at the far-left Crooked Timber, it turns out that John Quiggin's waxing about how the Egyptian revolution is vindicating Francis Fukuyama's thesis on the end of history (the end of Hegelian ideological struggle in history, and the triumph of democracy), "Fukuyama, F*** Yeah":

Supposing that Tunisia and Egypt manage a transition to some kind of democracy, it seems inevitable that quasi-constitutional monarchies like Jordan and Morocco will respond with further liberalisation and democratisation, for fear of sharing the fate of Ben Ali and Mubarak. Add in Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, all of which have elections of some kind, and the dominant mode in the Middle East/North Africa will have been transformed from dictatorship to (admittedly highly imperfect) democracy. The remaining autocracies (Libya, Mauritania Sudan, Syria) and the feudal monarchies of the Arabian peninsula will be seen as the barbaric relics they are, with days that are clearly numbered. Even if things go wrong for one or both of the current revolutions, the idea that these autocratic/monarchical regimes have some kind of durable basis of support is gone for good.

So, how is Fukuyama’s view of the end of history looking?

Quiggin, for all his pro-democracy harrumphing, is a radical progressive, and thus it's impossible for him to admit the idea that Fukuyama's end of history thesis is largely synonymous with the Bush administration's freedom agenda. Seriously. Look at that roster of states cited by Quiggan: From Tunisia and Egypt to Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, the promotion of freedom in those nations was inherent to President Bush announcement, in 2002:

The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance ...

When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.

There it is, plain as day. But progressives can't cite the freedom agenda without admitting that they've been on the wrong side of history. Quiggan's an academic, so he can reach back into more rarefied intellectual history to make his case, and citing Fukuyama provides plausible deniability, at any rate. Folks might recall that Fukuyama quite famously renounced the Bush administration's Iraq policy in a 2006 essay at the New York Times, "After Neoconservatism":

More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened.

Fukuyama's attack on regime change in Iraq was widely cited at the time. But a careful analysis of Fukuyama's writings reveals it's not so much the vision of universal freedom that he rejects, but the efforts of the United States to promote it with force of arms. In 2004, at National Interest, Fukuyama prefaced his later comments at New York Times. Renouncing democracy promotion at the point of a gun, he concludes nevertheless with an endorsement of American power in promoting world freedom, "The Neoconservative Moment":

The United States should understand the need to exercise power in pursuit of both its interests and values, but also to be more prudent and subtle in that exercise. The world's sole superpower needs to remember that its margin of power is viewed with great suspicion around the world and will set off countervailing reactions if that power is not exercised judiciously ....

The promotion of democracy through all of the available tools at our disposal should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the United States needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social-engineering projects in parts of the world it does not understand very well.

I doubt this is an argument that the fevered hordes at Crooked Timber will find very satisfying, but the facts are self evident. And some over there don't even like the idea that Egypt confirms the end of history thesis itself. For example, communist Freddie deBoer takes exception, "This perspective — this triumphalism — is one of the most rigidly enforced orthodoxies on the Internet." Yes, triumphalism, Western triumphalism to be exact. We're still moving in that direction, and the debate over Israel's fears of a democratic Egypt shows how fragile the grip of Western triumphalism is. But there's no doubt that human freedom is scoring a victory in the land of the pharaohs. And that's why, despite the caveats, I still don't say "Let Egypt Go to Sh*t."

Asmaa Mahfouz: 'There Will Be Hope'

At New York Times, "Equal Rights Takes to the Barricades":

People here are not afraid anymore — and it just may be that a woman helped break that barrier of fear.

Asmaa Mahfouz was celebrating her 26th birthday on Tuesday among tens of thousands of Egyptians as they took to the streets, parting with old fears in a bid to end President Hosni Mubarak’s three decades of authoritarian, single-party rule.

“As long as you say there is no hope, then there will be no hope, but if you go down and take a stance, then there will be hope.”

That was what Ms. Mahfouz had to say in a video she posted online more than two weeks ago. She spoke straight to the camera and held a sign saying she would go out and protest to try to bring down Mr. Mubarak’s regime.

It's another reason that, despite the dangers of fanatical Islam, the cause of freedom does burn bright in Egypt.

And it's a shame this administration's on the sidelines: "Obama Frozen on Egypt."

Obama Frozen on Egypt

Blizzard conditions are laying siege to parts of the Midwest and Northeast, and the administration's on top of it: "Obama is Updated On Winter Storms." But while the most severe weather has so far spared Washington, the White House is utterly frozen on Egypt's crisis. Marc Ambinder has a report, "Obama Might Own This Regime Change":

The administration is insulating the president from the press, closing to the full press pool the signing of Obama’s singular foreign policy achievement, the ratified New START arms control treaty with Russia. The White House then released a photograph of Obama being briefed about... the weather in the middle of the country. Eyes are open in the offices of the National Security Staff, but mouths are closed. At yesterday's Cabinet meeting, the president's staff allowed only photographers into the session as opposed to the usual practice of taking a question or two or, at the very least, saying something. This is a White House that doesn't want extemporaneous remarks to trammel on its carefully crafted statements that are aimed at a layered audience -- Mubarak, the Cairo street, the broader Arab world, America, Israel, and so on.

That's devastating, frankly, but Ambinder isn't that critical, unsurprisingly.

Jennifer Rubin offers some analysis, "Obama: Rushing to Catch Up With the Revolution." But see Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review, "Obama's 1979":

Yes, our third year of Obama hope and change is beginning a lot like 1979 (I’ll skip the domestic parallels), as an unjust and imperfect world rejects the utopian visions of another liberal idealist, and sees magnanimity as weakness to be exploited rather than as kindness to be reciprocated.

Ouch.

Amazing parallels.

RTWT.

Image Credit: Darleen Click.

Camels in Cairo?

Yep, horses and camels, at Telegraph UK, "Egypt crisis: Mubarak supporters on horseback attack anti-government protesters":

Several thousand supporters of President Hosni Mubarak, including some riding horses and camels and wielding whips, have attacked anti-government protesters as tensions in Egypt escalate.

And more reporting from Russia Today:

And at Wall Street Journal, "Mubarak Supporters Battle Protesters":

The political unrest gripping Cairo turned ugly Wednesday, as groups of supporters of President Hosni Mubarak charged antigovernment protesters, underscoring the difficulty of a smooth democratic transition to a post-Mubarak Egypt.

Bloody clashes in the city's main square escalated through the day, after Mr. Mubarak said Tuesday night he would step down after elections this year—angering protesters who demanded his immediate resignation after 29 years in power.

The two groups faced off, chanting slogans at each other, fighting and hurling missiles. Protesters at two entrances to Tahrir Square—by the Egyptian Museum and the route from downtown Cairo—came under attack from men heaving rocks and running into them with horses and camels.

The clashes marked a dangerous new phase for the confrontations. Earlier Wednesday, an army spokesman appeared on state television to ask protesters to return home to help restore order. The army said one soldier died Wednesday, and the Health Ministry said 403 were injured, according to statements on state television.

The Obama administration condemned the violence spurred by pro-Mubarak forces. "We are deeply concerned about attacks on the media and peaceful demonstrators," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Israel's prime minister said Iran wants to take advantage of the chaos to create "another Gaza" in Egypt, run by Islamic fundamentalists.

Speaking before the Israeli parliament, Benjamin Netanyahu said he expects any new government in Egypt to honor its three-decade-long peace agreement with Israel, the Associated Press reported. But he warned that Islamic groups have already taken over by democratic means in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza.

It's gonna be a big news day, all day. I'll have more later this afternoon. Meanwhile, check Ed Morrissey, "Videos: First-hand accounts of skirmishes with “pro-stability forces” in Cairo." And Memeorandum.

Violent Clashes in Egypt — VIDEO

I'll have more theoretical analysis later.

Meanwhile, The Other McCain updates: "Crisis in Cairo Continues: Egyptians Ignore Obama, Resort to Violence." And at The Lede, "Latest Updates on Day 9 of Egypt Protests."

And don't miss this, at Israel Matzav, "Mark Levin interviews Caroline Glick on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood." Also, a general blog roundup at Reaganite Republican, "Perusing the Conservative Blogosphere..."

Kissinger on Egypt: 'Classic Pattern of Revolution'

From Britain's Channel 4, "Henry Kissinger warns Channel 4 News that if an Islamist government replaces Mubarak in Egypt that it would be a 'fundamental change to the kind of world we have known since World War 2'."

The first thing to note is how brutally Kissinger slaps around his interviewer, Krishnan Guru Murthy, who throughout tries unsuccessfully to impugn not only American foreign policy toward Egypt, but Kissinger himself. Seriously. It's like an aged professor putting a disrespectful student in line.

But beyond that, I want to tie Secretary Kissinger's discussion with the newly kindled debate over neoconservatism and realism that's been engendered by events.

Daniel Larison, at American Conservative, it tutting and strutting around like a rooster in a hen house, "The Democracy Promotion Fetish." Obviously, the fact that democracy in Egypt could result in extremely unfavorable strategic circumstances counsels against too much grandstanding for the freedom agenda (something that I noted here earlier, in my discussion of "analytical realism"). The thing to recall about Larison is that he's an America-basher in "paleo-conservative" clothing, who gets most of his props from the neo-communist left. Any exertion of U.S. forward power is "ill-considered" and risks "blowback" against the "American empire." It's all a bunch of hooey, in any case. It's laughable "neocon derangement syndrome" for the most part. And thus no wonder Larison's got absolutely zero influence outside the truther fever swamps and with the nihilist left's hate-addled crossover readers.

But Kissinger's discussion dovetails with something else I've been meaning to get to. It turns out the Harvard's Stephen Walt, at Foreign Policy, offers a realist analysis of the Egyptian revolution: "A realist policy for Egypt." For realist Henry Kissinger, who served during the Nixon years, the collapse of Mubarak's regime holds deep structural significance of epochal proportions. It's interesting how he places uncertainty over both Egypt's government and it's commitments to peace in the context of Israel's security. He sounds wise, just like the elder statesman he is. In contrast, Walt offers a convoluted revisionist realist take on things, and suggests that "realism dictates that the United States encourage Mubarak to leave ..." Well, it can. But the theoretical justification can't be adequately specified in a blog post. Besides, theory's not the point. Bashing Israel and proposing a major reorientation of U.S. policy is. Walt writes:

To be specific, this crisis in Egypt is an opportunity for the United States to rethink the underlying principles of the Pax Americana that Washington has sought to maintain in the Middle East for decades. That arrangement rested on three pillars: 1) unconditional support for Israel, 2) denying or discounting Palestinian rights, and 3) support for and collusion with various "pro-Western" leaders whose legitimacy was always questionable. Though this policy had occasional moments of success-such as the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the 1991 Gulf War -- it was always a long-term loser. Unconditional U.S. support removed any short-term incentive for Israel to cut a fair deal with the Palestinians, and collusion with leaders like Mubarak made the United States even less popular on the Arab street.

In short, this as a moment when Barack Obama needs to be on the right side of history.

Being on the right side of history apparently means throwing Israel under the bus. And again, the contrast between Walt's revisionism and Kissinger's traditionalism is striking. Indeed, Kissinger dismisses "university professors" (like Walt) at the clip. Real world forces impinge on the actions of states, what theorists refer to as constraints. But in Walt's world, Egypt's revolution provides the ultimate opportunity to downgrade both Israel's legitimacy and America's interests in the Jewish state.

And this is why I don't trust realists like Stephen Walt. He goes hand-in-hand with folks like sleazy paleocon Daniel Larison, and together these shifty types provide high-falutin academic and ideological gloss to old-fashioned post-colonial progressivism. It's dishonest at the least and ultimately morally reprehensible.

VIDEO: Mubarak Disappoints Obama Administration

Well, what'd you expect, Barack Hussein?

It's not like you were out in front of the crisis jawboning Mubarak to step aside. And now you're displeased? That takes chutzpah.

At WaPo, "Mubarak Announcement Disappoints Obama Administration":

President Obama said Tuesday that a transition to democracy in Egypt "must begin now" and should lead to opposition participation in free and fair elections.

Speaking after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement Tuesday that he will not seek reelection in September, Obama said he had called Mubarak after the speech and discussed the situation in Egypt with him.

"He recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and that change must take place," Obama said at the White House. He said he told Mubarak of "my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now."

Earlier, Obama administration officials indicated that Mubarak's announcement was less than they had hoped for and was unlikely to satisfy protesters' demands for a new government.

Obama met with his top national security officials following Mubarak's televised speech as the White House contemplated its next step.

Mubarak spoke after receiving a direct message from Obama carried by retired U.S. diplomat Frank G. Wisner. Although officials declined to discuss the details of Wisner's meeting with Mubarak Tuesday, they said that the administration's "prevailing view" since last weekend has been that an agreement by Mubarak not to run again was insufficient.

In public statements since Sunday, the administration has called for an "orderly transition" in Egypt, defined by officials as the immediate establishment of a representative, interim government that would enact reforms and prepare for an open election.

Although officials have said the administration was not opposed to Mubarak's remaining in office through a transition period if that were acceptable to the Egyptian people, several indicated in recent days that they did not see how that would satisfy the vast throngs who have taken to the streets to demand his ouster.

Obama's message to Mubarak urging him not to run again contrasted sharply with the White House's characterization of its position in a news briefing Monday.

Hey, for the overly cautious, standing on the sidelines of history is good foreign policy. But I think most folks have seen this White House shaking in its boots amid an epic "3:00am" moment.

AP video c/o The Other McCain.

More later ...

Did Mubarak Thread the Needle?

Asks Robert Stacy McCain on Twitter, with a link to his piece at American Spectator. Folks can read the essay, as well as the additional comentary at The Other McCain. But as they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. And if this one's any indication, at New York Times, I'm thinking Mubarak's not too deft with the sewing gear. And from the Times:

CAIRO — President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would not run for another term in elections scheduled for the fall, appearing on state television to promise an orderly transition but saying he would serve out his term. In comments translated by CNN, he swore that he would never leave Egypt but would “die on its soil.”

Television cameras showed the vast crowds gathered in Tahrir Square in central Cairo roaring, but not necessarily in approval. The protesters have made the president’s immediate and unconditional resignation a bedrock demand of their movement, and it did not appear that the concession mollified them. Reports said that thousands of protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square chanted "Leave! Leave!" after the speech.

Mr. Mubarak’s announcement came after President Obama urged him not to run, effectively withdrawing America’s support for its closest Arab ally, according to American diplomats in Cairo and Washington.

RTWT.

I have lots more commentary and analysis planned for later, so check back.

Updates From Cairo — ADDED: Live Streaming Mubarak Address!!

I wish I was there!

Here's the tweet from Philip Crowley, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs: The U.S. is conveying "support for orderly transition in Egypt." I haven't seen anything else to indicate that Mubarak's going. But there's a presidential address announced, so who knows? At WSJ, "Mubarak to Address Nation as Protests Mount."

And at Israel Matzav, "White House Has No Egyptian Strategy." Also, at The Other McCain, "‘The Euphoria Is Fading’."

Expect new updates and analysis later today ...

ADDED: At NYT, "Obama Urges Mubarak Not to Run Again."

MORE: The Lede has links to live stream video, including Reuters and Al Jazeera.

Muslim Brotherhood: Terror in Waiting

As promised, a bit more of a critical take on Egypt's revolution, from Investor's Business Daily:

As the radical Muslim Brotherhood schemes to oust a pro-American despot in Egypt, U.S. pundits have cheered the move as a boon for freedom. This is dangerous pablum.

The Muslim Brotherhood is in talks with opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei to form a unity government to replace the regime of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a U.S. ally.

Pundits on both the left and the right have naively portrayed the Brotherhood — a worldwide jihadist movement based in Cairo — as a pro-democracy force that has "courageously campaigned against the government and for the poor," as a CNN anchor put it. Obama adviser Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, argues that the U.S. "should not be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood." He claims it "renounced violence years ago."

Former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino chimed in that at least the Brotherhood would pick up the trash and provide basic services for Egyptians. "Don't be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt," she said on Fox News. "This has nothing to do with religion." In fact, it has everything to do with it. The exiled Brotherhood hates Mubarak because he secularized Egyptian society. The Brotherhood wants to Talibanize it.

In 2007, the Brotherhood drafted a party platform under the banner "Islam is the solution." It called for establishing an undemocratically selected board of religious scholars with the power to veto any legislation passed by the Egyptian Parliament and approved by the president that's not compatible with Islamic law. The platform also called for banning women and Christians from high office.

The spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has argued that secularism "is atheism and a rejection of Islam," and therefore "downright apostasy." He vows the Brotherhood will "conquer America" and has been barred from entering the U.S. due to fatwahs calling for the killing of American troops.

Other facts Americans should know: Mubarak outlawed the Brotherhood because it assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, and plotted to kill him, too; the Brotherhood gave birth to Hamas and al-Qaida and still finances the terror groups; and Brotherhood alumni include Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ayman al-Zawahiri (who was jailed for the Sadat murder) and blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (who issued a fatwah blessing it).

Still more at the link.

This is one reason why I updated my position on Egypt: "Analytical Realism: Political Stability in Egypt is Cardinal Israeli Interest." Freedom could bring terror. That's the danger, and good leadership with U.S. backing is going to be essential to the transition from Mubarak. But don't hold your breath on the administration. See Jennifer Rubin, "Obama's Failure of Imagination." And at LAT, "U.S. open to a role for Islamists in new Egypt government." (Via Memeorandum.)

And see the reports at NewsReal Blog, especially Ryan Mauro, "The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mask: Mohammed El-Baradei."

Pregnant Natalie Portman on the Red Carpet at SAG Awards

We temporarily interrupt our Egypt reporting to bring you the fabulous Natalie Portman at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Can't pass that up:

And from LAT, "'The King's Speech' continues its reign at SAG Awards," and "SAG Awards red carpet."

Rule 5 Related: POWIP, "Christina Hendricks’ Ethical Body."

Until Later: The Other McCain has a morning roundup in Egypt, "Massive New Protests in Egypt." And at Maggie's Notebook, "Gauntlet Thrown in Egypt? ElBaradei to Represent Protesters to US?"

Analytical Realism: Political Stability in Egypt is Cardinal Israeli Interest

Readers following my analysis of Egypt have noted my optimism on the prospects for democratization. While I don't for a minute doubt the possibility of the most dangerous outcome (an Islamist regime committed to the destruction of American interests in the Middle East, and to eradication of Israel), I've focused rather idealistically on the notion of universal change toward Western-style freedom. The more I think about it, I could be wrong. And I'm becoming more pessimistic, against my inclinations to human goodness. So, I probably should be giving more weight to analytical realism, and especially to Israeli security interests. And thus, don't be surprised as my commentaries appear more hard-headed as events continue to unfold. The euphoria is fading.

The headline at top borrows from the Jerusalem Post's editorial, "An orderly transition of power in Egypt":

Relations with Egypt since the signing of the Camp David Peace Treaty in March, 1979 have been cold, yet even a tepid peace with Egypt is of utmost importance.

The quiet along our mutual border has allowed the IDF to redirect military resources to other potentially inflammatory locations – south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip – while reducing the strain on reserve soldiers.

Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, the IDF and Egypt have quietly coordinated efforts against Iranian-supplied arms smuggling.

Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood rule would not only put an end to all this, but a sometimes reluctant ally, with the largest and (Israel-excepted) strongest armed forces in the Mideast, based on the most advanced American-made technologies, would be transformed into a bellicose foe.

To cover all the borders as potential military fronts for the first time since the years following the Yom Kippur War, the IDF would need to undergo major structural changes, spreading its already limited resources even thinner.

ANYONE WHO cherishes liberty inevitably sympathizes with the aspirations of Egypt’s men and women, young and old, secular and religious, educated and not, who have taken to the streets in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other sites across the country, demanding an end to Mubarak’s oppressive government. Those rare blog entries in praise of freedom that managed to skirt Mubarak’s Internet blackout were truly moving. Justice is on the side of the legions of young Egyptians blocked from getting ahead by a corrupt and mismanaged economy and a system in which who you know is more important than what you have to offer.

It would be comforting to believe that there is a third way – that when the dust has settled, Egyptians could find themselves led neither by a radical Islamist regime headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, nor by more Mubarak-style repression under Suleiman or someone else. One would like to believe that Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad ElBaradei, leader of the reformist movement, is right when he argues that it is only Mubarak’s propaganda that has convinced the West that Egyptians must choose between just two options – the status quo authoritarian regime, or “the likes of bin Laden’s al-Qaida.”

Yet the sad fact is that an overwhelming proportion of Egypt’s populace supports Islamic fundamentalists.

There's more at the link above, but the main point is that a transitional regime under Suleiman will more likely promote the best approximations of freedom in Eygpt. But it's Caroline Glick's piece that's most shaking me out of my euphoric daze. She offers a brilliant, nuanced piece of analysis, and is critical of both the neoconservative vision represented by the Bush administration and the post-colonial progressivism represented by the Obama administration. And she concludes that's there's really no third way beyond these. First principles of statecraft caution against dramatic change in Egypt, and as much as we hope upon hope, I'm now convinced this is the correct analysis. See, "Clueless in Washington":

What has most confounded Israeli officials and commentators alike has not been the strength of the anti-regime protests, but the American response to them. Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

They have pointed out that the Obama administration’s behavior – as well as that of many of its prominent conservative critics – is liable to have disastrous consequences for the US’s other authoritarian Arab allies, for Israel and for the US itself.

The question most Israelis are asking is why are the Americans behaving so destructively? Why are President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charting a course that will necessarily lead to the transformation of Egypt into the first Salafist Islamic theocracy? And why are conservative commentators and Republican politicians urging them to be even more outspoken in their support for the rioters in the streets?

Does the US not understand what will happen in the region as a result of its actions? Does the US really fail to understand what will happen to its strategic interests in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood either forms the next regime or is the power behind the throne of the next regime in Cairo?

Distressingly, the answer is that indeed, the US has no idea what it is doing. The reason the world’s only (quickly declining) superpower is riding blind is because its leaders are trapped between two irrational, narcissistic policy paradigms and they can’t see their way past them.

The first paradigm is former president George W. Bush’s democracy agenda and its concomitant support for open elections.

Bush supporters and former administration officials have spent the last month since the riots began in Tunisia crowing that events prove Bush’s push for democratization in the Arab world is the correct approach.

The problem is that while Bush’s diagnosis of the dangers of the democracy deficit in the Arab world was correct, his antidote for solving this problem was completely wrong.

Bush was right that tyranny breeds radicalism and instability and is therefore dangerous for the US.

But his belief that free elections would solve the problem of Arab radicalism and instability was completely wrong. At base, Bush’s belief was based on a narcissistic view of Western values as universal.

When, due to US pressure, the Palestinians were given the opportunity to vote in open and free elections in 2006, they voted for Hamas and its totalitarian agenda. When due to US pressure, the Egyptians were given limited freedom to choose their legislators in 2005, where they could they elected the totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood to lead them.

The failure of his elections policy convinced Bush to end his support for elections in his last two years in office.

Frustratingly, Bush’s push for elections was rarely criticized on its merits. Under the spell of the other policy paradigm captivating American foreign policy elites – anti-colonialism – Bush’s leftist opponents never argued that the problem with his policy is that it falsely assumes that Western values are universal values. Blinded by their anti-Western dogma, they claimed that his bid for freedom was nothing more than a modern-day version of Christian missionary imperialism.

It is this anti-colonialist paradigm, with its foundational assumption that that the US has no right to criticize non-Westerners that has informed the Obama administration’s foreign policy. It was the anti-colonialist paradigm that caused Obama not to support the pro-Western protesters seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime in the wake of the stolen 2009 presidential elections.

As Obama put it at the time, “It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the US president meddling in the Iranian elections.”

And it is this anti-colonialist paradigm that has guided Obama’s courtship of the Syrian, Turkish and Iranian regimes and his unwillingness to lift a hand to help the March 14 movement in Lebanon.

MOREOVER, SINCE the paradigm claims that the non-Western world’s grievances towards the West are legitimate, Obama’s Middle East policy is based on the view that the best way to impact the Arab world is by joining its campaign against Israel. This was the central theme of Obama’s speech before an audience dominated by Muslim Brotherhood members in Cairo in June 2009.

There's more at the link above.

And I'll have more later.

Birth of an Authentic Egyptian Democracy

I doubt folks need reminding that Nicholas Kristof's a bleeding progressive, but he's on the ground in Egypt, and he's lived there previously. And from the majority of video clips I've seen and posted, the bulk of this account rings true. "Exhilarated by the Hope in Cairo":

As I stand in Tahrir Square on Monday trying to interview protesters, dozens of people surging around me and pleading for the United States to back their call for democracy, the yearning and hopefulness of these Egyptians taking huge risks is intoxicating.

When I lived in Cairo many years ago studying Arabic, Tahrir Square, also called Liberation Square, always frankly carried a hint of menace. It was cacophonous and dirty, full of crazed motorists in dilapidated cars. That was way back at a time when the then-new Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, talked a good game about introducing democracy.

Now the manic drivers are gone, replaced by cheering throngs waving banners clamoring for the democracy they never got — and by volunteers who scrupulously pick up litter, establish order and hand out drinks and food.

“I’m going home right now to get food and drinks for the demonstrators,” one middle-age man, Waheed Hussein, told me as he hopped into his car near Tahrir Square shortly after curfew fell. While talking to me, he allowed a hitchhiker to jump in, and then the hitchhiker decided to bring back supplies as well. With great pride, the two new friends explained to me that this would be their contribution to the birth of an authentic Egyptian democracy.

In short, Tahrir Square has lost its menace and suddenly become the most exhilarating place in the world.

Yet one thing nags at me. These pro-democracy protesters say overwhelmingly that America is on the side of President Mubarak and not with them. They feel that way partly because American policy statements seem so nervous, so carefully calculated — and partly because these protesters were attacked with tear gas shells marked “made in U.S.A.”

The upshot is that this pro-democracy movement, full of courage and idealism and speaking the language of 1776, wasn’t inspired by us. No, the Egyptians said they feel inspired by Tunisia — and a bit stymied by America.

Everywhere I go, Egyptians insist to me that Americans shouldn’t perceive their movement as a threat. And I find it sad that Egyptians are lecturing Americans on the virtues of democracy.

Read the whole thing.

I've been reading Kristof's reporting at The Lede. He's got this recurring premonition that the tanks are going to roll like in Tienanmen in 1989. That's distressing. But as far as I can tell, the military is standing firm against the use of force against the demonstrators. That move is probably designed to clear the way for Suleiman's transition, but it's still a good sign. The military brass view the revolt as reflecting legitimate demands for reform. A crackdown would throw the country into the abyss. Death and destruction could spiral. What Kristof ignores, of course, is the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood. It's still early. Today's "march of millions" could be the turning point. It's depressing that the Obama administration continues to dawdle. Time is of the essence, at least in showing that the U.S. stands in solidarity with the populist street in Egypt. Waiting too long may sow distrust at U.S. intentions. The U.S.-made tear gas canisters are bad enough as it is. As I've said throughout my reporting, all of this is dangerous for the Middle East and especially Israel. But still no one knows. From the hardline anti-jihad bloggers to folks like John Bolton, it's all speculation at this point. So again, say some prayers for Egypt's democracy. A majority of the population wants stability and good government. Over time I'm confident that --- with good leadership and U.S. backing --- we'll see an anti-Islamist regime emerge that puts the welfare of Egyptians front and center.

So, here's hoping Nicholas Kristof's intuitions prove correct.