Why would I even suggest that?
Well, for one reason, can we believe a nice Jewish boy, smart, clever and experienced would believe things like what follows, that he said in a lecture Monday at the American University in Cairo (AUC).
...Friedman said that the Islamist sweeping the vote in the latest parliamentary elections was normal and expected. "For decades, Egyptians were missing the Arab nationalist, and most importantly, an authentic political alternative during Mubarak's rule, now they finally found it represented in the 83-year-old Islamist group of the Muslim Brotherhood," Friedman said. "The Muslim Brotherhood is legitimate, authentic, progressive alternative. Only faced by the four-month old liberals, they had to win," he added.
The lecture comes during his visit to Egypt to reflect on the Egyptian scene amid the historical parliamentary elections and the approaching, long awaited first anniversary of Jan. 25 popular uprising that toppled the country's strongman Hosni Mubarak.
..."We now have a Congress that’s trying to find a legal framework for bribery, this tells you how money ruined our politics," Friedman explained.
The Muslim Brotherhood is "progressive"? Is that a typo? Should that not be "regressive"?
And by "bribery", he wasn't referring to AIPAC ("I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."), was he?
Oh, how the might have fallen.
Or did he not say those things?
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment