Mubarak offers to take half a step down
Mubarak says that the reports of his resignation are greatly exaggerated.
You may note that when I wrote earlier today about the predictions that he’d be leaving, I hedged a bit by saying, “That’s the report, anyway.” My skepticism came not from any special prescience I have about events in Egypt, nor from any particular insight into Mubarak’s mind, but simply from my distrust in the MSM.
I happened to be in my car when Mubarak’s speech began, so I was able to listen to most of it (in translation, of course). It became apparent from the first couple of sentences that it wasn’t really a good-bye. My immediate impressions are that: elections will be held in September or before, Mubarak has every intention of playing a large behind-the-scenes role in the transition, and the army will continue to have enormous clout and is willing to be quite aggressive if it need be (if demonstrations threaten to get out of hand, for example). But if things get really hot and heavy, the army might decide to force Mubarak out and not give him the option he took today.
As far as the outcome of the long-term jockeying for position goes, your guess may be as good as mine (or as good as that of our seemingly clueless Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper). But for what it’s worth, my guess is that the army stands a good chance of holding things down long enough to allow elections in September, that those elections will be at least marginally more open and free than in the past (not the world’s highest standard), and that Mubarak/Suleiman may even appear to ease up on the emergency measures that have been in place for Mubarak’s entire 30-year rule and have so angered the people.
If the Muslim Brotherhood is allowed to campaign for office, the outcome of the elections will probably find that group holding a plurality but not a majority in Egypt’s Parliament. This will make them a force with which to be reckoned. Hey, while I’m making predictions, I’ll go so far as to say what percentage of the seats in Parliament I think the Muslim Brotherhood could capture: one-third.
Why one-third? Because I’ve noticed, in many places and many times, that’s often approximately the percentage that seems willing and eager to support more extreme positions. In a multi-party parliamentary system, a one-third win can sometimes lead to coalitions being formed and, in the end, to absolute power.
The head of all of our intelligence operations, James Clapper, the White House’s “Director of National Intelligence” or DNI, when asked to characterize the Muslim Brotherhood, said this in his Congressional testimony to the House Intelligence Committee today:
“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,”
“They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally”…
Clapper said later in the hearing that the Brotherhood in Egypt runs 29 hospitals ”not under the guise of an extremist agenda.” He said the group fills a vacuum cause by the absence of government services, but added, “It is not necessarily with a view to promoting violence or overthrow of the state.”
And here, in contrast, is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in Egypt in 1923 as a revolutionary organization to “reform” Islam i.e. to bring it back to its original roots and purity, to its foundational traditions and ideology, to work for the reestablishment of the Caliphate, and for the victory of Islam over all the world and the all unbelievers in it that Allah, the Qur’an, and Muhammad called for and decreed:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!
Wolla Dalbo: I posted a related link above on the words “seemingly clueless.” Have you read it? Clapper tried to issue a correction.
Is it any wonder we are so behind the eight ball in the world today, with dimwitted mutts like this guy–personally chosen by the President to be his DCI, I might add–setting intelligence policy and objectives, and giving the President the benefit of his learned and informed advice and analysis?
I will manfully refrain from the obvious riffs on the DNI’s name and intelligence that come to mind.
Neo–Sorry ,I skimmed your post above and did not catch the link.
Wolla Dalbo: I’m not sure how much I believe of Clapper’s backtracking. But it’s at least possible that he didn’t really mean the MB is so innocuous. I would reserve judgment till I read his remarks in context.
Sure sounds dreadful, though.
Neo–Having worked on terrorism issues for many years, I cannot believe that his statements about the Brotherhood don’t reflect either utter stupidity and cluelessness, and/or a total surrender to political correctness. It is like someone who has had the benefit of a decent education through high school not knowing his ABCs, or which way is East or West, or that the Sun comes up in that East each morning.
I mean, come on, the Ikhwan is not exactly a debating society that runs a homeless sheleter, but if you listened to Clapper’s testimony that is what he made them out to be.
The sooner this guy is fired, the better, because if he remains as the DCI and has great influence on how our anti-terror operations are run, all of our lives are made that much less secure than they could or should be.
neo, there is NO WAY Clapper can backtrack or weasel out of his appalling remarks though it’s hardly surprising that he tried. It is absolutely frightening that these people are in charge of our nation’s security – they are either galactically stupid or are willfully trying to whitewash the MB.