That headline contains many half-truths and outright falsehoods, although for many around the world, at the New York Times and within our own government (Clapper, Obama et. al.) this headline was thought to be, and may even to this day still be believed to be, the actual truth of what went down in Egypt.
That the uprising was nothing more than a hunger for democracy by a population fed-up with totalitarian rule and high food prices who was energized and organized through social media.
That the Muslim Brotherhood is actually a "mostly secular" organization, content to stay on the sidelines and take its chances for power in a general election and who possessed no evil intentions along the lines of the establishment of an Islamic theocracy.
Was this misread of the situation on the part of the Obama administration simply naivete, a bad strategy or part of a plan?
Readers of The Political Commentator and a vast array of other alternative news sources (aka non-MSM) have known for some time of just how false the headline was and is. Those who read at all and who possess any sense of history of the region and of the Muslim Brotherhood knew the likely end result even if our own government did not.
Or did the Obama administration actually know and this was the desired result all along?
It's been asked before and will be asked again but why was there so much urgency for Mubarak to step down in Egypt but not the dictators in Syria and Libya where civilian slaughter is taking place daily, and where the ruling regimes are equally as oppressive?
Read a great analysis of the Egyptian crisis at Hotair here.
Subscribe now for free email or feed delivery of new TPC articles here:
Subscribe in a reader