Posted on 02/10/2011 10:48:30 AM PST by OldDeckHand
During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement "largely secular."
In response to questioning from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) about the threat posed by the group, Clapper suggested that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.
"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," Clapper said. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
In the same way that Al Qeada is “largely tolerant” (err...of those who submit to the Koran).
Sounds like Iran Revolution II is on the way.
“...James Clapper called Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement “largely secular.””
this is an appeal to the PC world/mindset...that everything that is secular is good.
i submit that that is false...and dangerous.
Was he under oath? Lying under oath is a felony. He should be in jail.
Can he really be so dense as to believe the MB is largely secular? Really?
This is either rank incompetence of beyond-Carter levels or is yet ANOTHER indication of where Team Obama’s sympathies are, and they sure as heck aren’t with the Judeo-Christian crowd.
This guy is clueless.
The second is his name. The first is descriptive.
:)
Or, maybe there is a secret program at Harvard that brainwashes people into hating America...
He sure got a long way for an idiot but the label appears to fit.
One wonders if he is stupid, ignorant, an obama lap dog whore or all of the above?
Not to split hairs, but...lying under oath in a criminal or civil trial can indeed be a felony - perjury. Lying to Congress is a slightly different beast, insomuch that it is called Criminal Contempt of Congress - and I believe it's "only" a misdemeanor, but I'm not positive without looking it up.
Here's the rub when an administration official lies to Congress - Congress can't prosecute anyone. Only the Executive Branch can prosecute people. If Congress believes someone has lied to them, then they have to refer the matter to a federal prosecutor (I think the US attorney for the District of Columbia), who then decides to prosecute, or not. Most legal scholars believe that Congress can't compel prosecution because of separation of powers problems.
For this reason, and several others, I don't believe anyone has actually ever been prosecuted for Criminal Contempt of Congress, whereas many (dozens and dozens) have been found to be in contempt of Congress, by Congress. But these are generally pursued civilly, and not criminally.
Must be a long line of wild bears waiting to use his bathroom. Since, in his world, they don't use the woods.
The Hollywood Ten, plus EPA official Rita Lavelle.
Another fantasy shattered. Oh well. Too bad that lying under oath to affect legislation isn’t a felony. That would reduce the ranks of lobbyists and Executive Branch officials pretty quickly.
Sorry, I got a bit lazy there - I was referring solely to administration members. BUT, I did forget about Rita Lavelle.
If you spend any time on the Hill, you'll notice that occasionally people "testify" but aren't put under oath, especially administration members who might be covered by Executive Privilege. They'll partially waive that privilege, if the testimony isn't sworn.
I would also point out that Congressional subpoenas are an entirely different animal. It used to be said that in DC, there are two things that are impossible to get rid of. One is a Congressional subpoena, and the other is Ted Kennedy's bar tab.
The Muslim Brotherhood champions theocratic rule. Iran’s current president lauds them, and seems to take great pride in the fact that they have benefited from his support, and in fact comes close to claiming they are acting on his behalf at times.
It’s the same old squad that seeks to clamp down on freedoms and move women back five hundred years. They are hard line Islamic adherents, and hard line Islamic adherent’s actions can be discovered on the internet with little problem.
What I mentioned has been the track record of these groups. Is that what we want more progressive nations in the Middle-East to return to?
I doubt you think so. That’s what I was addressing.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t secular, unless all the things I describe are considered merely secular in Islamic Theocratic states. And the Iranian model is what they want to install in the progressive nations across the Middle-East.
No thanks.
Secular...
This is perhaps the most abstract word used in the media. As far as we can be concerned, Hitler, Stalin, and even your regular religious fanatics such as Marcion, bin Laden or Mohammed were “secular” in terms of not believing by heart in diety while ruling through self-worship, and driving the populace to worship themselves.
Narcissism is the breakfast of tryanny, no kidding.
a National disgrace..
“Clapper, it seems, has a chronic case of stupid.”
Muslim + Brotherhood + Egypt = “largely secular.”
Uh huh.
Bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Bring cash, Clapper.
“Sounds like Iran Revolution II is on the way.”
I think Turkey is the more likely model. They will put up some stooge in a suit like El Baradai or that google hipster . The MSM will eat it up. All the while the islamists will be infiltrating the military power structure in the background.
Turkey has been doing alright for decades, even with this Erdogan business.
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.