In the course of defending his paper for the Democratic Leadership Council’s think tank, advocating engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, Shadi Hamid drops this aside:
The Muslim Brotherhood is not an ideal ally. They are far from liberal, something which I’ve noted in nearly every piece I’ve written on this topic. (It’s a different issue, but I don’t think the Republican party is liberal either, as they refuse to ban torture, have little respect for separation of powers, have stacked our bureaucracy with people who put party over country, and believe in something called the “unitary executive†which is more frightening than anything I’ve seen the MB put out in their election programs).
Hamid goes on to argue that the Brotherhood has reformed itself over the last decade or so, though there is more than a little evidence to suggest that the Brotherhood remains supportive of violent jihad against the West and is conducting a PR campaign to convince the West otherwise. Hamid may not be a party to that campaign, as the Brotherhood probably would not see the launch of a partisan smear of the GOP as a way to influence the Bush Administration.
Nevertheless, Hamid shows he does know how to echo Andrew Sullivan’s torture hysteria and rhetorical jihad against “Christianists”, not to mention Glenn Greenwald(s)’s fevered paranoia of unlimited executive power. (Even the slanted Wikipedia entry on the “unitary executive” notes that the purpose of the theory is to “preserve individual freedom” and has been invoked at least as far back as the Jefferson Administration.)ÂÂ
One theory – which I’m not endorsing, just airing- is that Sullivan, Greenwald(s) and his troupe of assorted sock-puppets and sycophants thus form a chorus of useful idiots that grease the ideological skids for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Comment by Karl on 8/9 @ 10:10 pm #
…and yes, I had Jeff’s permission to post on the main site on a school night.
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 10:25 pm #
If we use Charlie Wilson’s standards, we can ignore all of the Gleens and Sully because of teh gay. Now, that is not my position, as I think they should be ignored because of their gob-smackingly over wrought prose, and their states of being perpetually aggrieved.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 8/9 @ 10:32 pm #
Where’s Tom Wolfe when you need a 2007 update to “Radical Chic?”
Comment by Big Bang Hunter on 8/9 @ 10:56 pm #
- Ok….its all starting to take shape finally….Hamid is actually the person who taught GreenWald Ellis McPhereson the banjo….not his brother….what a liars the Glens(s)(s)(s)(s) are….
TW: policy lips ….I suppose….but I thought the time he showed up, Ryan’s half a mustache on his ear was pure genius….
Comment by happyfeet on 8/9 @ 11:26 pm #
From the longer piece Hamid cites…
Wouldn’t an apology be a necessary precursor to payment of reparations? Certainly it would instigate demands for them. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable that Democrats are examining this paper for its policy value.
Comment by psychologizer on 8/9 @ 11:31 pm #
Where’s Tom Wolfe
In the land of the rococo tabloid reporters, staring at a slightly off-white spot on his jacket sleeve, trying to resist touching it, because that will only make it shiny.
Comment by happyfeet on 8/9 @ 11:45 pm #
you are quickly becoming my favoritest commenter
Comment by JD on 8/9 @ 11:46 pm #
If the Dems think that this would be an effective policy position, then by all means, bring these people onto your side.
Comment by cjburch on 8/10 @ 12:03 am #
Hitchens noticed some time ago tha the left was foring up ranks wiht the Mullahs and other assorted facist murderers. This is just more of the same isn’t it?
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 12:22 am #
Dunno ’bout Hitchy (inasmuch as he doesn’t cotton to Christianists, either), but the convergence has been posited by some. As noted above, I’m “not endorsing, just airing.”
Comment by cjburch on 8/10 @ 12:27 am #
Yeah, Hitchens stand on Christians tends towards the extreme, but he’s noticed it too, I think. Besides, I’d go one step beyond you. I think they are declaring sort of a politcal alliance with the facists in this case. Why they feel it is necessary is beyond me, it actually weakens their position. I tend to figure it is simple stupidity.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 12:27 am #
Here’s some relevant Hitchy from 2004.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 12:32 am #
Oh, it likely goes beyond stupidity. The Left has long had a Luddite streak, and its anti-globalization stance is congruent with the Islamists’ medium-term agenda.
Comment by ahem on 8/10 @ 1:06 am #
Plus, they’re ideologically suicidal.
Comment by Sean M. on 8/10 @ 2:49 am #
Since none of the other commenters bothered, I guess I’ll do the honors:
Jeff is just jealous because Glenn Greenwald is a New York Times bestselling author who, after only blogging for nine months rose to prominence. His blog posts have inspired articles in major newspapers and have been quoted on the Senate floor.
Comment by Sean Mellensberg on 8/10 @ 2:52 am #
I agree completely with what Sean M. said.
Comment by Sean Mellers on 8/10 @ 2:53 am #
Sean Mellensberg and Sean M. make some good points.
Comment by Sean M. on 8/10 @ 2:59 am #
Not that anybody has raised any objections, but several cabana boys have access to my computer. They may have posted comments from my computer while I was distracted by getting a drink refill. GOOD DAY SIR!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 8/10 @ 4:57 am #
“Comment by ahem on 8/10 @ 1:06 am #
Plus, they’re ideologically suicidal.”
Sorry, their ideology died long ago.
All they have now is the shambling, stinking zombie of reaction.
Comment by Attila (Pillage Idiot) on 8/10 @ 5:32 am #
The unitary executive theory goes back at least to Alexander Hamilton. From Federalist No. 70: “The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.” Some people are just ignorant. Here’s Teddy Kennedy at the time of the Alito hearings: “‘These issues are so sophisticated – half the Senate didn’t know what the unitary presidency was, let alone the people of Boston,’ he said, referring to one of the legal theories that was a focus of the hearings. ‘I’m sure we could have done better.’”
Comment by BJTexs on 8/10 @ 6:47 am #
Here’s a mind-numbing throw away from Hamid’s article:
Let’s just review for a moment:
Iran: Pre 1979? Ding: post 1979? Bzzzt!
Saudi Arabia: Bzzzt! Repressive, Pro-western in PR only, Theocracy
Kuwait: Bzzzt
Syria: Bzzzt While mainly secular and repressive they can’t be characterized as Pro-West and their continued support for Jihadists of many stripes is clear.
Iraq: Ding! (but not anymore, grasshopper)
Yemen: Bzzzt
Oman: Bzzzt!
Jordan: Bzzt Pro-west and secular? Aye! Repressive? Not so much.
Egypt: Ding! However, Egypt has been a veritable breeding ground of Jihadist thought for over a Hundred years. Their repression is equal parts staying in power and self-preservation.
Lebanon: Let’s just not go there.
Afganistan: Bzzzt At least not in the last 25 years.
The stunning error associated with that statement lends me to wonder about Hamid’s real intentions.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 8/10 @ 7:09 am #
To be fair, Teddy was pretty well into his Cutty ’bout that time.
TW: Dakota Rerum…no, scotch is his fire water.
Comment by mojo on 8/10 @ 7:41 am #
A little reading up on the history of, say, the Moghul invasion of India might prove enlightening re: the possibilities of truce with Jihad.
SB: ideas ceeds
Comment by Aldo on 8/10 @ 8:35 am #
I wonder if that is a distinction without a difference.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 9:16 am #
In response to Sean M. & Co., I feel obliged to point out that I’m the author of the pice and am not jealous of Greenwald(s)’s advocacy so much as I am his handsome visage. Granted, it’s just a cartoon at Salon, but I’m sure that’s entirely appropos.
Comment by Complicity on 8/10 @ 9:25 am #
I don’t understand how America can claim to be promoting democracy in the Middle East and at the same time shun popular movements and prop up the dictators that repress them. Maybe the Democrats just realize that supporting democracy means respecting it even when the outcome seems to be in opposition to US interests.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 8/10 @ 9:48 am #
Really? You can’t understand that?
So I guess all “popular movements” are worthy of support? And that the victory of a “popular movement” is a victory for freedom? Or do you realize there are some “popular movements” that simply do not deserve power? And that, sometimes, a dictator is the least offensive of two options?
For an example, look at Iran. The Shah was oppressive, sure. But he wasn’t as oppressive as the mullahs have turned out to be, and wasn’t a danger to us as they have been since their first days in power.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 9:54 am #
Saddam used to get about 100% of the vote; can’t get more popular than that.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 9:57 am #
In contrast, the Founders here were against a democracy, which is why we have a representative republic.
Comment by Karl on 8/10 @ 10:01 am #
Really? The Democrats are always trumpeting that they are the party that protects minority rights against the mob. But whatever.
Comment by Al Maviva on 8/10 @ 10:48 am #
My name is…
My name is…
My names is…
Slim Shadi…
What a coincidence and sense of irony this silicon box has: I was just refering to the Muslim Brotherhood’s unique style of TW: 1919 Heathendom.
Comment by Merovign on 8/10 @ 2:36 pm #
1) As far as Hamid’s oddly fact-free statements, that’s something that you see a lot from the mouths of terror-apologists. You almost get used to it, and just shake your head sadly when it happens.
2) Complicity is funny, for a telephone pole, but the congruence in tone between what it says and what Hamid said is even funnier.
I mean, the first half is just standard anti-Western meme repetition, but the part about Democrats respecting vote outcomes they don’t agree with is just hilarious.
Trackback by Dakine Pro 2 on 3/16 @ 8:32 pm #
Dakine Pro 2
20 liters: Dimensions: 21 Dakine backpacks such as the Heli, Heli Pro an