|
Posted on 11/24/2012 12:25:53 PM PST by John Semmens
The so-called “Arab Spring” took a decidedly ugly turn in Egypt this week when President Mohammed Mursi issued a decree barring any challenges to his decisions.
Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed El Baradei denounced Mursi’s action calling it “a major blow to the revolution. What good does it do us if we get rid of the dictator Mubarak only to replace him with a dictator Mursi? Isn’t sharing of power and open debate the whole point of democracy?”
Mursi denied he was trampling democracy. “Debate is fine, but there must be limits,” Mursi maintained. “The laws I decree must be enforced. There must be respect for my authority. Words or deeds that would serve to undermine either of these critical objectives cannot be tolerated.”
Whether Mursi’s expansion of his own authority will be tolerated is an open question. Many of the same protesters who rallied against Mubarak are back in the streets demonstrating against this latest development.
Clashes are expected as Mursi described these protests as “unwarranted interferences.” “Mubarak was a fraudulently elected tyrant,” Mursi pointed out. “In contrast, I, like recently reelected US President Obama, have a legitimate mandate from the voters. Mubarak was also sick and weak. I am not.” The Egyptian President warned opponents that “attempts to obstruct my rule will result in dire consequences for those who go too far.”
The US State Department said it was taking a “wait and see” attitude toward this seemingly antidemocratic shift. “They’re still working on their constitution, so it’s possible that what appears to be an unjustified usurpation may yet be endorsed by those drafting the document,” cautioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Then, too, Mursi was just recently elected. So we can’t rule out the argument that he, in fact, has a mandate of sorts. As we are wont to say, elections have consequences.”
As for Mursi’s declaration that actions taken by the courts or legislature in contravention to his wishes are void, Clinton expressed sympathy. “Sometimes a president may have to bypass other bodies in order to carry out his mandate,” she said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be so critical. For all we know, President Obama may find himself in a similar bind in the not too distant future.”
In related news, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s order blocking the Iranian Parliament from investigating President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement of the economy was called “intriguing” by the US Secretary of State. “Khamenei’s point that such an investigation could weaken the regime seems well taken,” Clinton observed. “Congressional investigations of Fast and Furious and Benghazi are damaging to our country. Making them disappear might eliminate a great deal of the negative impressions these inquiries are causing.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/11/23/president-omits-god-from-thanksgiving-address-for-fourth-straight-year/
“Debate is fine, but there must be limits,” Mursi maintained.”
Translation; “I won.”
Arab Spring chickens coming home to roost for Obama.
Obama is the President of Egypt too?
I do not know what this means. We’re we supposed to continue to prop up Mubarek?
LOL, you're joking, right? This is EXACTLY what Obama the communist muslim wanabe dictator wanted. Leave it to the MSM to act surprised...FReepers should know better.
I realize this article is semi-satire but I did hear a radio hour news update saying something along these lines.
When I heard it, I was reminded of Barack Obama's end runarounds of the Legislative Branch and his verbal smackdown of the Judicial Branch and his reliance on unelected/unconfirmed Czars and Executive Orders and in session "recess" appointments.
hope ubama doesn’t get any big ideas
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. What he all but said in his 2011 September speech to the UN.
bump
yes, we were. At least it wasn’t the mooslime bro hood and they had a treaty with Israel.
Mubarak was pro-western. His replacement wants to chop off your grandbabies heads.
Egypt now has their own Barry Benghazi wannabe.
Enjoyed the satire John.
Terrorists were having trouble
What a sad, sad error
Needed an enabler
To restore their reign of terror
Where oh where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around
And then we found
Obama wants us free
It's Arab . . .
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
The Brotherhood is happy and gay
We did our big Benghazi job
We're glad, glad as a Nazi mob
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
Winter for Christians and Jews
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
Come on, Muslims, get over your blues . . .
Mobs are now a Cairo factor
Copts will need a chiropractor . . .
Don't be stupid, don't you be odd
Come and join the Muslim jihad . . .
It's Arab . . .
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
Burkas will work as a rule
Bombs blowing up a crowd again
Jihad is proud and loud again
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
Springing up riots galore
Springtime for Egypt and Libya
Means that soon we'll be blowin'
We've got to be blowin'
You know we'll be blowing up more!
Mubarek wasn’t pro western. He was pro money for himself. Democracy is messy and this will take a long time to play out. I for one will back the will of the people. As soon as Morisi tried to grab power protests have broken out. Just because we might not like it the will of the people matter.
An interesting question. It is unknown as to whether “propping up” Mubarak would have kept him in power.
To any extent, we weren’t propping him up. We gave Egypt aid, which he used, but we still give that now.
Obama threw Mubarak under the bus when he denounced his legitimacy as the leader of Egypt, and from then on, he lost the will to fight. The ones he thought he could always trust had abandoned him. It reminds me of what the British did to Augusto Pinochet after he helped them in the Falklands War with Argentina. Total betrayal.
Mubarak was a dictator. He inherited his presidency from Anwar Sadat, and Egypt had never had democracy at any point during its history. Despite this, he has been unfairly smeared by our Lame-Stream media as the equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Far from it, Mubarak saved his nation from itself. He saw the radical elements within Egypt and he knew that they were powerful. If they managed to seize control, they would destroy the country. They would govern as the Taliban had in Afghanistan, smashing women’s rights, and persecuting the minority Coptic Christians. They would also likely plunge Egypt into another war with Israel (who would have guessed?). He didn’t want that for his country, so he was forced to rule with an iron fist. He exiled, imprisoned and killed radical Muslims, but he didn’t try to ethnically cleanse a particular group like Saddam did, and he never created special prisons for torturing children. He may have enjoyed perks as president, as all dictators do, but he was not especially brutal or unfair in his rule. This being said, his economic policies were disastrous and could not survive the ravages of the global recession and the effect it had on the world markets.
He’s gone now, and we have the Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader has granted himself greater powers than Mubarak had, and is engaging in all of the things Mubarak feared.
Whether or not it would have changed the outcome of the revolution is secondary. As a matter of principle, for the good of the world, our own interests, and looking to the future, the interests of Egypt, Obama should not have asked Mubarak to step down.
Would you have backed the will of the people in Nazi Germany?
I agree with most of what you said. Well written. As far as asking him to step down, I believe that was inconsequential since the momentum was already going that way. You have to work with what you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
