Egypt 2.0

For the second time in little more than two years the Egyptian military has overthrown its county's leader in response to massive nationwide protests.  Only this time they deposed a democratically elected president, Mohammad Morsi, who had failed to live up to his promises and who had installed an authoritarian government. 

Egyptian General Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi announced Wednesday evening that the Morsi government was dissolved, the constitution was suspended, and that an interim government would be installed headed by a senior jurist.  Military officers and a group of political and religious leaders joined el-Sisi at his announcement.  The announcement set off a jubilant celebration in Cairo's Tahrir Square, where tens of thousands of anti Morsi demonstrators had gathered.  Meanwhile, a few blocks away, a large gathering of pro Morsi supporters protested the coup. The Egyptian army had been deployed to maintain peace, but violence may not be avoided.

Former President Mohammad Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a decades old Islamic and political group founded on the belief that Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life.  Last November, Morsi granted himself unlimited powers, including the ability to legislate without judicial oversight.  His moves toward an Islamic state were unpopular with many Egyptians who took to the streets to express their unhappiness.

During Morsi's presidency unemployment skyrocketed, crime increased, the economy declined, and the country experienced shortages of gasoline, electricity and water.  Morsi proved to be a poor manager.

Nonetheless, the country is deeply divided between those wanting a sectarian government and those wanting an Islamic state.  But, following the tyrannical rule of former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, the only political party of any consequence was the Muslim Brotherhood.  And its party members were easily mobilized when Egypt held its democratic election one year ago.  The opposition was divided and had no strong leadership.  Morsi won 51.7% of the vote, thus eking out a victory.

The sacking of Morsi puts President Barack Obama and the American government in a difficult spot.  The White House released a statement from the president Wednesday night, in response to Morsi's toppling, which reflected America's dilemma.   "We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsi and suspend the Egyptian constitution," Obama said.  "I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsi and his supporters," he continued.

Egypt, the most populous Arab country, is a critical American ally. Egypt has continued to live by its vital peace agreement with neighboring Israel.  Each year America provides the country about $1.5 billion in military and other aid.  But that aid can be cut off in the event of a military coup.  In his statement, the president said, "I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt."

Further complicating the situation is the fact that the Egyptian military is holding Morsi and has rounded up as many as 300 leading members of the Moslem Brotherhood.  These actions have cast a cloud of uncertainty over an already confusing situation.

While the U.S. can try to exert pressure for a quick return to a democratic state, ultimately it will be up to the Egyptian military to move the country forward.  But it promise of a roadmap for reconciliation will face great challenges because the country so deeply divided, and the Muslim Brotherhood will be more energized than ever.   

The whole world will be watching, especially Turkey, Syria, Iran and Israel. 

Benghazi Politics

Republicans are obsessed with last September's attack by terrorists on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  So rabid are their efforts to uncover a scandal that some in the party are throwing the word impeachment around. 

An independent inquiry, headed by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, released a damning report last December.  It found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" within the State Department resulted in a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."    Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took full responsibility in a Congressional hearing in January. 

Instead of focusing on what is being done to capture the perpetrators and what measures are being put in place to assure it doesn't happen again, tragically Republicans are zeroing in on a misleading set of administration talking points used by officials to explain the attack.   The State Department's top spokeswoman at the time, Victoria Nuland, objected to including the CIA's reference in an early draft to intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi.  ABC News reported that one of her emails said it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."  

With the Presidential Election a few weeks away last fall, Republicans believe that the administration did not want to say anything that would undermine President Barack Obama's claims that Al Qaeda was defeated.  Instead, they believe the talking points were intentionally "scrubbed" of references to Al Qaeda.  And they cite as further proof the statements made by America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talks shows that the attack was in response to an anti-Islamic film that had fueled violent anti-American demonstrations at the same time in twenty countries, including Egypt and Tunisia.   

Were her statements, which came from the talking points, a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people?    Reuters reported that, "A source familiar with the Benghazi communications said Nuland was concerned the talking points went further than what she was allowed to say during her briefings and that 'the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department's expense.'"  In other words, this was a skirmish between two government agencies over who would be blamed.  

In Wednesday's Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican Representative Darrell Issa, three witnesses spoke at length about the incident.  The then number two official in America's Tripoli Embassy, Gregory Hicks, said he was stunned when he heard Rice's account.  He claimed that he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled by the State Department.  That charge was denied by the State Department, which said he was reassigned with no reduction in pay.  Nonetheless, Hicks was not prohibited from speaking to Congress.

There were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during President George W. Bush's administration.   American diplomatic facilities have been targets of anti-American sentiment for decades.  In spite of that, Congress has been reducing diplomatic security budgets in recent years.  

Sadly, four Americans died in the attack at Benghazi.  In their memory, and for the sake of all those who serve our country overseas, Congress should now focus its attention on how to better protect our outposts instead of trying to score political points.    









. 

Romney Stumbles

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”  By his definition, were he alive today, Groucho Marx could point to Mitt Romney as a perfect example!   But, no doubt many Republicans wish they could Etch A Sketch away the past six weeks of the Romney campaign.

Today many political observers characterize Romney's campaign as desperate, disoriented, erratic and lacking a budget plan.  Yet, it was suppose to be so easy.  Having won a bitterly contested Republican primary, Romney would be able to position himself as a successful "Mr. Fixit" businessman who could save the U.S. economy.  His approach was to make the 2012 presidential race a referendum on President Barack Obama's handling of the economy.  But before Romney could get out of the starting gate, the Obama campaign went after Mr. Fixit.  

Romney was co-founder and once head of Bain Capital, one of the world's leading private asset management firms.  It turns out that they succeeded in saving some businesses.  But Bain also closed several companies down, took out millions of dollars and left thousands of people without jobs, all facts that the Obama campaign relentlessly pointed out. Of course, Bain Capital's main goal is to make big profits for its investors, not to create jobs.  At the Democratic Convention, Vice President Joe Biden put it this way, “Folks, the Bain way may bring your firm the highest profits. But it’s not the way to lead your country from its highest office.”

Romney said he was a successful governor of Massachusetts.   But his single biggest achievement was "Romneycare", the state's near universal health care law that was the blueprint for "Obamacare," which Romney has vowed to repeal on his first day if he is elected president.  But last week Romney said, on NBC's Meet the Press, ”Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place.  One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."  This set off a firestorm among conservative Republicans.  Later that day, Romney's campaign again reconfirmed he was against covering people with pre-existing conditions who have not had continuous health coverage. 

At the Republican Convention, Romney was upstaged by an embarrassing endorsement from actor Clint Eastwood, who crudely spoke to an empty chair that represented President Obama.  In his tepid acceptance speech, Romney focused on biography and talking points, but offered no specifics on how he would save the economy.  And, in an inexplicable omission, Romney failed to mention the American soldiers serving in Afghanistan and around the world.

The Republican candidate, looking to further mobilize his conservative base and add some spice to the ticket, brought Representative Paul Ryan on as his running mate.  Ryan is a favorite of the right, and author of the Ryan Budget Plan.  But that plan, which was has widespread support among Congressional Republicans, calls for deep cuts in entitlements.  Under Ryan's plan, Medicare would be voucherized and Medicaid would be converted to block grants to states.  As a result, recipients would be left to personally pay for some of the quickly increasing medical costs they will face in the future.

If he embraced Ryan's plan, Romney would risk alienating many seniors, a critical demographic in many swing states.  So Romney has been distancing himself from the Ryan plan.  In an interview with CBS News, he was asked, "Are you running on [Ryan's] budget or on your budget?" Romney responded, "My budget, of course, I'm the one running for president."  Yet, Romney has failed to offer specifics for about his budget.

Romney has also failed to explain why he has parked so many of his investments in off shore accounts.  He found himself on the defensive on his personal taxes.  He has adamantly said he will release only two years of federal returns.  In his 2010 return he paid an effective rate of 13.8 percent in taxes on an income of $21.7 million.  He has not yet released his final 2011 returns, but he has estimated he will pay an effective rate of 15.4 percent on income of $20.9 million.  His taxes are certain to remain an issue heading into the election.

Romney and Ryan have little foreign policy experience, and it shows.  Candidate Romney has blustered about the Russians and the Chinese as if, to use the president's description, he is "stuck in some cold-war tie warp."  So it is no wonder he was poised to seize an opportunity to criticize the president on foreign policy.  While terrorists were attacking the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans dead, Romney was attacking the White House for a statement released by a middle level consulate official. 

Romney's statement read, in part, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."  Very few facts were known at this point.  In response to Romney's attack, the White House put out a statement, "We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack." 

While many Republicans were questioning Romney's judgment, the candidate was doubling down at a news conference the next day.  Republican columnist Peggy Noonan said, ""Romney looked weak today I feel, I'm still kind of absorbing it myself, at one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters, and I thought, 'He looks like Richard Nixon.'"

President Obama, in an interview with 60 Minutes, said that Romney tends to "shoot first and aim later."  He continued, “And as president, one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that, that, you know, it’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make ‘em.”

The past few weeks have been very difficult for candidate Romney.  A just released Fox News national presidential poll shows President Obama with a 48% to 43% lead over Mitt Romney.  Perhaps Romney's actions have had an adverse impact on his campaign.  After all, you learn a lot about a person in a time of crisis.

   

Rejoice Egypt, Rejoice!

In a historic day that will resonate throughout the Arab world, Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak has stepped down. But, as millions of Egyptians celebrate throughout the country, soon their attention will turn to an uncertain future.

This is a huge victory for the people of Egypt and for democracy. Leaders of countries such as Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are closely watching events unfold. No doubt, so are the leaders of Iran and China. Their people are restless and thirst for freedom and a better way of life. Will the voices of these people now be heard?

For sure, Mubarak was a great friend to America. He supported and maintained peace with Israel. But he also obscenely stole billions of American taxpayer dollars flowing into Egypt as military aid. It is estimated that his family, steeped in corruption, has amassed a fortune of $70 billion, making the Mubarak clan among the wealthiest in the world.

Even worse, Mubarak brutalized his people with a highly repressive regime. He ruthlessly controlled every aspect of his country and his police harshly suppressed dissent by jailing and beating those who spoke up against his rule. Since taking over thirty years ago, following the assassination of the Egyptian Anwar Sadat, Mubarak has maintained a state of emergency in Egypt. He snuffed out any attempts to form opposition parties. Some friend.

Now two weeks of largely peaceful demonstrations, involving millions of Egyptians from all walks of life, have toppled Mubarak. Televised on free media throughout the world, viewers were rivited to their sets watching the dramatic developments unfold. More important was the role of social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. And a local Google executive, who was arrested and then released by police, became a hero and leading figure to demonstrators. This was truly a social revolution.

As the pressure built, Mubarak tenaciously tried to hang on to power. But those around him could see what he would not accept; his time was up. So when Mubarak refused to step down it is reported that some military leaders threatened to remove their uniforms and join the demonstrators. Their stubborn leader, who had vowed to die in his homeland, finally agreed to relinquish his power and fled to the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh. It is unclear if this will be his last stop.

The Egyptian military has taken control of the country. This is a transformative moment, but it is also fraught with uncertainty. The demonstrations have brought the country's economy to a halt as banks and many businesses have been closed for nearly two weeks. When will people return to work? Will the election scheduled for September take place? Who will emerge? What role will the Muslim Brotherhood, responsible for Sadat's assassination, play in the country? What role can America play in assuring a peaceful transition to democracy? There is an old Egyptian proverb, "Do not rejoice over what has not yet happened."

President Barack Obama has handled this crisis well. He spoke out for a democratic process, freedom and an end to repression. He encouraged a peaceful transition to a more representative government. He could not call for the overthrow of Mubarak without risking the ire of other Arab states. But now the real work begins for the American government.

Isis is the ancient Egyptian goddess of motherhood, healing and magic. The people of Egypt will no doubt welcome her help as they begin to build their future.

Meanwhile, rejoice Egypt, rejoice!