February 6, 2013

“Senate Republicans Arm the Brotherhood”

Andy McCarthy, who claims to know a thing or two about the Muslim Brotherhood, seems displeased.  Which is odd, given that I’ve read bloggers praising the strategery of such a masterful willingness to arm the Brotherhood in order to, you know, really keep an eye on them and have a say in what they do going forward.  Having essentially put them into power in the first place.  Presumably to keep an eye on them and have a say in what they do going forward.

McCarthy, I have to conclude, is very unnuanced.  Naive, even.  Unversed in the ways of DC.  And so he isn’t likely to land a blogging gig at any of the big “conservative” outlets of the sort that back the wisdom of such conservative icons as John McCain or Lyndsey Graham.  Not anytime soon.

But then, that’s the punishment for showing yourself an idealist rather than a deep-thinking realist engaged in a very complex game of geopolitical RISK.

Still, let’s give this rube his moment:

I’m done grumbling about how President Obama is empowering America’s enemies. After all, it is not just Obama. When it comes to abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, Republicans are right there with him.

Not all of them, of course. This week, for example, Senator Rand Paul proposed an amendment that would have prohibited our government from transferring F-16 aircraft and Abrams tanks to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government. This lunatic plan is not just an Obama initiative. It is also a GOP brainstorm — of a piece with 2011’s Libya debacle, in which Republican leaders cheered as Obama, upon consulting with the Arab League, ignored Congress and levied war on behalf of the very jihadists who, quite predictably, have since raided Qaddafi’s arsenal, besieged northern Africa, and massacred Americans in Benghazi.

— Wait, let me stop this ungrateful Hobbit right there.  Look, Andrew.  We’re looking to change the brand.  And as people seem to like Obama — and Obama seems to really dig the Muslim Brotherhood — it’s electoral suicide to follow some ironclad purist principle about handing weapons over to those whose stated goal is to destroy us, particularly when we can rationalize it publicly as a super secret, super smart way to keep them under control, then have “conservative” blogs rushing to very reasonably explain the latent genius of the move.

You, Andy, my dear lapsed Republican, need to get your ass in line.  If not for the children, then for something else of value that we’ll come up with later.

But continue.  We’ll let your fringe extremist views air, if only to mark you as a Muslim hater, a racist, and a potential domestic terrorist of the “far right”:

A few weeks back, the John McCain & Lindsey Graham roadshow made its way to Brotherhood Central in Cairo, with newcomer Kelly Ayotte in tow. Senator Ayotte appears to have filled the void created by Joe Lieberman’s retirement — after all, when you have Republicans, who needs another Democrat? The former trio is best remembered for its Tripoli triumph of late 2009, when the three kicked back in the Qaddafi compound and toasted our newly cozy relations with the dictator. The bipartisan solons then winged their way home in time to second the Obama State Department’s increase in funding for the Libyan dictator’s regime. After all, they reasoned, Qaddafi was our hedge against Libya’s jihadists. As is their wont, though, the solons soon dazzled us with a 180, suddenly deciding that what we really needed to do was back Libya’s jihadists in their war against Qaddafi. The rest, as they say in Mali, is history.

So the GOP brain trust now brings this Midas touch to Egypt, rallying behind Obama’s cozy relations with the new “Islamic democracy.” That would be the Brotherhood’s rapidly unraveling sharia basket case, into which our own bankrupt government has so far sunk nearly 3 billion U.S.-taxpayer dollars, with more billions soon to come through U.S.-backed IMF loans and, yes, sophisticated U.S. weaponry. Any moment now, as it was in turbulent Libya, the ground in Egypt is certain to shift, or crater. When it does, who knows whose side the senators will have us on . . . and who knows what American enemies may be wielding that U.S. weaponry?

Are you questioning their patriotism, sir?  Because it sound to me like you are questioning their patriotism. And that OUTRAGES me.  How dare you!  How dare you!

Senator Paul, by contrast, has three ideas that seem positively batty to the McCain gang. First, he thinks that American foreign policy ought to be premised on American national interests, not on the shifting notions of “global stability” popular at the Wilson School and the Council on Foreign Relations. Second, he suggests that when we give aid and arms to anti-American Islamists, bad things tend to happen to America. Finally, Paul believes the foundation of American foreign policy is, of all quaint things, the United States Constitution. The Framers gave Congress not merely the authority but the duty to thwart executive excess. On the international stage, that primarily means the power of the purse, which enables the people’s representatives to defund such madness as the arming of Islamic supremacists.

Okay. But that’s because he’s a bigot and a kook and part of the far right fringe Bircher Truther racist extremists, who live under rocks and beneath bridges on the  outer edges of the far far right reactionary terrorist militia White Supremacy movement.

I thought that should have been obvious.  He’s a nativist.  A repulsive reptile of a “constitutionalist” — which, may I remind you, commits him to an adulation and adoration of slave-holding and misogyny.  So really:   this is who you are going to back?  Hell, you may as well back the stultifyingly stupid reactionary ideas of that snowbilly bint up there in Alaska, with her stupid uterus and her very cold nipples pointing from her front porch directly at Russia.

Wish to embarrass yourself more, Mr teabagger?  Or have you had enough?

[…] 23 Republican senators opted to follow the lead of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte. They joined all Senate Democrats (and a couple of nominal “independents” who are, in effect, Democrats) in voting to “table” the Paul Amendment. “Tabling” is a bit of procedural chicanery, allowing senators to defeat Paul’s amendment yet pretend to the folks back home that they didn’t actually vote “against” it.

Don’t be fooled. The choice here was simple: Stand with the Muslim Brotherhood or stand with the American people. Nearly two-thirds of Senate Republicans went with the Brothers.


Kudos to the 18 Republicans who joined Senator Paul in trying to stop the arming of America’s enemies: Boozman, Coats, Cornyn, Crapo, Cruz, Fischer, Grassley, Heller, Lee, Moran, Risch, Roberts, Rubio, Scott, Sessions, Shelby, Thune, and Vitter. Common sense is on their side. Sadly, history is sure to follow, and probably soon.

See? Now that’s just outrageous.  And unhelpful. There are nuances that need to be considered, and as you, Mr McCarthy aren’t a US Senator — in fact, what is it you actually do, other than pester good Muslim patriots, if I may ask? — you couldn’t possibly begin to understand all the thinking that went into the McCain / Democrat coalition of pragmatism.  Which probably included, among other things, a dinner session in which the Maverick sought the counsel of Meghan, who has her finger directly on the pulse of the youth vote — so much so that she was able to convince Republicans to move left on a number of issues, providing the very last bit of impetus that thrust the GOP to Presidential victories in both 2008 and 2012.

She’s a McCain. Who the hell are you?

Howsabout we just agree to leave the politics and national security to those who know best about it.  Because I have to tell you:  if ever there was someone American wanted on that wall, needed on that wall, it’s Lyndsey Graham.

What Americans don’t need and don’t want are hardliners who wish to deny the Muslim Brotherhood the basic decency that is befitting a not yet sufficiently armed terror state.

I said good day, sir!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:51am

Comments (17)

  1. Whereas those Taiwanese? Too scary and war-like to sell F-16s to. And who would want to upset the mainland oligarchy?

  2. Sen. Paul addressed the Heritage Foundation on his views of foreign policy today — Heritage will release a recording of the address later according to The Right Scoop, who vows to have it posted when available. In the meantime, The Daily Caller wrote it up, quoting Paul at some length, as well as some opponent of Paul’s name of Justin Raimondo, who mocks:

    *** Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo, a longtime supporter of Paul’s father, tweeted, “Shorter Rand Paul: Them thar MOOSLIMS are just like the COMMIES. Oh, and Israel, Israel, Israel.” ***

    and on twitter:

    *** “Should libertarians try to contain Rand Paul — or should we go for regime-change?” ***

  3. Egypt is just fucking nasty

    we need to wipe them off our shoe or we’ll track them all over mom’s clean floors

  4. There are nuances that need to be considered, and as you, Mr McCarthy aren’t a US Senator — in fact, what is it you actually do, other than pester good Muslim patriots, if I may ask? — you couldn’t possibly begin to understand all the thinking that went into the McCain / Democrat coalition of pragmatism.

    Our problem with Egypt IS Andy McCarty. After all, he’s the racist bastard that put the Blind Sheik in prison for the rest of his life. Just imagine how much better we’d be getting along if that wasn’t the case!

    Then, “McCarthy.” It’s like Q.E.D. and also “Duh!” He should be in jail.

  5. Am I my Brotherhood’s keeper?

  6. Via WeaselZippers, Paul’s speech.

  7. Justin Raimondo believes the Jews were behind 911. Lots of “reporting” early on about students taking pictures, vans disappearing, Israeli spies as art students, etc.

    I believe Carl Cameron at FOX used to read him and started making similar intimations.

    So yeah, I bet he was a long-time supporter of the elder Paul. Who doesn’t fear them thar MOOSLIMS. Just US snipers.

  8. The scary thing is that our foreign policy is just as unsustainable as our fiscal policy. Indeed, there is some obvious interplay between the two. That said, for the foreseeable future we will live in the world we’ve all grown to know and love—a world in which US hyperpower allows Washington to meddle in a broad array of issues that are not at all connected to core US interests.

    Sadly, part of the problem is that US policymakers no longer have a focused understanding of exactly what US interests are. They talk in vague terms about “regional stability,” “protecting the global commons,” and “ensuring the vitality of our alliance relationships.” Without a clear focus we invest our resources in unproductive endeavors, propelled by dangerous assumptions about the nature of our interests and the durability of American hegemony. Unfortunately for the keepers of the conventional wisdom in DC, the balance of power is shifting away from us in relative terms and the money for the sort of military assets and global presence we would need to defend our imagined interests is simply not going to be there.

    I would encourage you guys to read Jack Snyder’s book “Myths of Empire.” The author analyzes examples of imperial overstretch and looks to answer the question why some states (e.g. Imperial Japan) expand in ways that are ultimately counter to the national interest. Snyder argues convincingly that states like the US are less vulnerable to the same sort of over-expansion, but you can still see some interesting parallels that make the book worth reading if you are interested in why states overreach.

  9. cloward piven the world tour

  10. And Colorado Democrats call for disarmament of Colorado citizens.

  11. Whereas that little town on Whidby Island Washington shows the way.

  12. Can new categories of “political” mental illness be far behind with Obamacare.

    Stricter notification requirements so that mental health professionals can identify mentally ill people who pose a risk and then notify officials to put them into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s gun background check database

    Imposing fees for gun background checks, which now are conducted for free

    Fees which one would suppose could be raised to any level needed to discourage the riff-raff from having arms. Like a poll tax for the 2nd amendment.

    Requiring universal background checks on all gun sales, something Democrats say can be done without gun registration

    It’s not like they would ever lie to us is it?

  13. Justin Raimondo is an old school loon. He’s been at this forever. Whatever team he’s on is the wrong one.

  14. mental health professionals

    what soviet fun

  15. Fees which one would suppose could be raised to any level needed to discourage the riff-raff from having arms. Like a poll tax for the 2nd amendment.

    California Democrats are talking about making gun owners purchase an insurance policy for each weapon, Like on a car.

    I’m sure SCJ Roberts would approve such a scheme…

  16. California Democrats are talking about making gun owners purchase an insurance policy for each weapon

    proposition d: democrats and their voters pay for state gov’t.