Tuesday, June 12, 2012

US elites want MB in control of Egyptian army

I AM POSTING THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT COMMENT---
IT WAS SENT "UNEVALUATED"---
NOTE THE DATE OF PUBLICATION    9 May 2011



 US elites want MB in control of Egyptian army


Historical and Investigative Research - 9 May 2011
by Francisco Gil-White
The US government has been pushing hard to make the Muslim Brotherhood a legitimate political force in the new Egypt. Why? Is it because the US government does not understand that the Muslim Brotherhood preaches the extermination of infidels and the destruction of Israel?
________________
Table of Contents
     Short preface
     The interpretation of diplomatic language   
      What does the Muslim Brotherhood preach?
      Is President Barack Hussein Obama misinformed about Islam
and the Muslim Brotherhood?
     The future, coming soon
___________________________________________________________

Short preface
____________
The Muslim Brotherhood organization is now all over the Muslim world. It controls vast amounts of resources and has an enormous membership. It is highly disciplined. And tremendously influential. As the Economist explains: “The Muslim Brotherhood…, founded in Egypt in 1928, has been an important incubator of Islamist movements, and has survived decades of repression.” In the recent political upheaval “its highly disciplined youth movement proved crucial to the protests that overthrew [former Egyptian president] Mr [Hosni] Mubarak.”[1]
What is the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the US ruling elite? And what does this relationship hold for the future? This article will seek to explore these questions.
The interpretation of diplomatic language
____________________________________
Historian Bernadotte Schmitt once wrote: “Diplomatic records… never tell the whole story of a diplomatic transaction, as Bismarck long ago avowed, for the motives of the negotiators are seldom declared.”[2]  But if statesmen and their diplomats, even in their one-on-one dealings, do not reveal what their real intentions are, then their public declarations—speeches, interviews, press briefings, etc.—will be even less transparent. Whoever says, “President Obama’s intention is X because he declared his intention to be X” is not doing political science but propaganda. If we wish to understand Obama’s—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite’s—intentions vis-à-vis the Muslim Brotherhood, we must interpret their public statements. In this regard, certain statements from the month of February 2011 are especially useful. Interpretation (naturally) requires context: the context of US actions. We shall provide it.
Let us begin with Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. At a February 2nd press briefing reporters asked him about the US position on the Muslim Brotherhood.
[Quote from Press Briefing begins here]
MR. CROWLEY: [...] If any figure wants to play a role in this [new political] process [in Egypt], they can come forward. If any — if any group –
Q: They could? Does that include the Muslim Brotherhood?
MR. CROWLEY: If any group wants to come forward and play a role in a democratic process, a peaceful process, that is their right as Egyptians. It’s not for us, the United States, to dictate this.[3]
[Quote from Press Briefing ends here]
Let us unpack this.
Consider the words: “It’s not for us, the United States, to dictate…” Anybody who has followed US foreign policy over the years will see the problem. When the US ruling elite does not like something, it makes its wishes known, and then, if necessary, forces the outcome. It dictates. Unhappy with a particular regime, it may bomb (Yugoslavia), invade (Panama, Iraq), or else arrange a coup d’état (Guatemala, Iran). Or it may do lots of other things. In the 1947 National Security Act, the US Congress gave US Intelligence very broad authority to influence the media and political processes of other countries with so-called “covert actions.”[4]
Perhaps more to the point, just a few days before the above quoted exchange, former US ambassador to Egypt, Frank G. Wisner, explained the following on TV:
“We [the US ruling elite] have known that the end of the Mubarak period would be with us in some reasonable time frame. We’ve been thinking in these terms. …the situation is not a surprise.”[5]
But if the US government was already expecting (planning?) a transition to a post-Mubarak Egypt, who was the favorite to replace Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak?
Rewind back to June 2009. Just a few months after installing himself in the White House as the new president of the United States, Barack Obama made a trip to Egypt, to give a speech, to send a message to Muslims. This is very deliberate stuff. Dramatic stuff. (As dramatic and deliberate, perhaps, as Obama giving his first interview as president, just 6 days after assuming office, to Al Arabiya Television.) But if Obama was there to address Muslims in general, was he speaking to (winking at?) anyone in particular? According to a number of reports in the Middle Eastern media, Obama insisted that top representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be allowed to attend his speech.[6]
All by itself, this invitation to the Muslim Brotherhood is pregnant with meaning. Egypt is a US client-state, whose military has been built up, tremendously, with US largesse. And the client military government, led at the time by Hosni Mubarak, had been trying to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power. So the Muslim Brotherhood representatives, in the context of the dramatic invitation by the president of the World Superpower (Egypt’s Big Boss), were bound to pay close attention to the content of Obama’s speech. And producing such careful attention to content, naturally, was the reason for inviting them. This is how diplomatic language works.
And what did Obama say to the leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission is to make Islam the Law of State in Egypt?
Obama passionately praised the virtues of Islam, and showed that he knows the Quran intimately, for he quoted extensively from it without even glancing at his notes. And he produced the most remarkable interpretation of his job: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States,” he said pointedly, “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[7]  As we said, public statements by government officials are usually mired in deceit, subterfuge, and indirectness, but in this case we have relatively clear diplomatic language. Unless the Muslim Brotherhood leaders had fallen into a deep coma they were bound to hear Obama loud and clear: Your turn is up. Get ready.
Now fast forward a year and a half later (in political time, a few seconds) to the 2011 protests. Frank Wisner was sent to Egypt to convey to Mubarak the desires of the US government, which Phillip Crowley, speaking for the State Department, explained in a January 31 briefing: “President Mubarak pledged a — you know, to undertake political and economic reform. And, as we’ve said ever since, we want to see, you know, concrete actions…”[8] The next day Christiane Amanpour explained on ABC News what was going on: “President Obama dispatched Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt, to deliver a message directly to Mubarak suggesting he not seek re-election.”[9]
This is how the Empire dictates the outcome to its client state.
But pressing the Egyptian military government to 1) remove Mubarak, and 2) rush to hold elections, as everybody understands, will give the upper hand to the Muslim Brotherhood. So, not surprisingly, the next day (February 2), Phillip Crowley was asked by reporters to state the US position on whether the Muslim Brotherhood should play a role in Egyptian politics. To which he replied (as we saw): “If any group wants to come forward and play a role in a democratic process, a peaceful process, that is their right as Egyptians. It’s not for us, the United States, to dictate this.”
So what does this mean, in context? It means this:
The US ruling elite WOULD LIKE (very much) for the Muslim Brotherhood to play an active role in Egyptian politics.
Not surprisingly, there were reports that Frank Wisner had met with the Muslim Brotherhood during his trip to Egypt. Reporters asked Crowley about this at the same press briefing, and he denied it (he seemed a bit nervous).[10]
On February 14th Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Al Arabiya Television. This is “an Arabic-language television news channel… partly owned by the Saudi broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC).”[11]  So Clinton was speaking here directly to the Saudi-style salafists/wahabbists allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.
[Excerpt from interview begins here]
MR. MELHEM: […] Is the [Muslim] Brotherhood welcome at the table as President Obama hinted last week?
SEC. CLINTON: That is up to the Egyptian people. […][12]
[Excerpt from interview ends here]
Translation: Yes, you understood President Obama’s hint perfectly.
On February 23rd, Clinton gave an interview to Masrawy.com, an Egyptian website owned, through LINKdotNET, by Orascom Telecom Holding, an Egyptian multinational.[13]  She was speaking directly to Egyptians.
[Excerpt from interview begins here]
MR. GHANIM: […] What would be the reaction of the United States if Muslim Brotherhood gained power in Egypt through a true democratic election?
SEC. CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that it’s up to the Egyptian people… any party that is committed to nonviolence, committed to democracy, committed to the rights of all Egyptians, whoever they are, should have the opportunity to compete for Egyptian votes. […] [14]
[Excerpt from interview ends here]
Translation: We will all pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to nonviolence and democracy. Muslim Brotherhood: no problem.
Mubarak resigned under US pressure. Then the US pushed for a lightning quick timetable for a referendum on a new Constitution followed by new elections. According to the Economist, “the referendum marked a big step towards sending the army… back to barracks… [T]he speedy timetable laid out in the new deal may help the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, among others, to dish secular liberals and other fledgling parties in any early poll.” And this is the reason, as explained by the Economist, that Egyptian liberals voted against going for a new Constitution and early polls in the referendum (which they lost).[15]  (Let us not forget that the old Egyptian Constitution forbids the formation of religious political parties, something Egyptian liberals no doubt appreciated about it.)
Now, given that the US ruling elite appears to be pushing for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, we should seek to understand what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for.

What does the Muslim Brotherhood preach?
______________________________________
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a widely known Somali author who, in order to escape Islam, took refuge in Holland, where she became a citizen, a political scientist, and a Member of Parliament. She now lives in the United States, after a Muslim stabbed her friend Theo van Gogh to death in the streets of Amsterdam. Pinned between the knife and her friend’s chest was a letter addressed to Hirsi Ali: you are next. The reason for the murder was that van Gogh had made a short film with Hirsi Ali about Islam and its oppression of women.
Hirsi Ali knows the Muslim Brotherhood well. In her autobiography, titled Infidel, she explains the role of this organization in Kenya, where she lived for a number of years as a refugee from the Somali civil wars. In her Nairobi neighborhood, the local Muslim Brotherhood preacher was one Boqol Sawm, whose strategy was to recruit the women first, and then use the women to shame their husbands into becoming good Muslims. If they wanted their wives to obey them again (for wives need not obey husbands who do not accept true Islam), they would have to follow the Brotherhood.[16]  It was a powerful inducement. “Boqol Sawm,” explains Hirsi Ali,
“shouted that the men who rejected their wives’ call to Islam would burn. The rich who spent their money on earthly things would burn. The Muslims who abandoned their fellow Muslims—the Palestinians—were not true Muslims, and they would burn, too. Islam was under threat and its enemies—the Jews and the Americans—would burn forever. Those Muslim families who sent their children to universities in the United States, Britain, and other lands of the infidels would burn. Life on earth is temporary, Boqol Sawm yelled; it was meant by Allah to test people. The hypocrites who were too weak to resist the worldly temptations would burn. If you did not break off your friendships with non-Muslims, you would burn.”[17]
Hirsi Ali tells how one day she went with her Islamic class, led by one Sister Aziza, to a new Muslim Brotherhood mosque built in a poor neighborhood with the money of a Saudi millionaire. The Muslim Brotherhood was converting many poor Kenyans to Islam with the hook of social assistance (highly effective). A recently converted Swahili woman began breastfeeding her child the way she used to prior to her conversion, with her breast in the open.
“All the girls from Sister Aziza’s class shrieked in unison, and we transported this young woman to a hall in the women’s section. An older woman of Swahili origin [another convert to Islam], covered from head to toe in black, started to instruct her in the Islamic way of breast-feeding. First you say Bismillah before you put the nipple into the mouth. As the baby is feeding, beg Allah to protect your child from illness, earthly temptations, and evil ways of the Jews.”[18]
Is an image worth a thousand words? Perhaps a well-chosen anecdote is worth a thousand explanations: It is correct for a Muslim child to begin life suckling Jew-hatred from mama’s teat.
Hirsi Ali explains further:
“[The Muslim Brotherhood] taught that, as Muslims, we should oppose the West. Our goal was a global Islamic government, for everyone. How would we fight? Some said the most important goal was preaching: to spread Islam among non-Muslims and to awaken passive Muslims to the call of the true, pure belief. Several young men left the group to go to Egypt, to become members of the original Muslim Brotherhood there. Others received scholarships from various Saudi-funded groups to go to Quran schools in Medina, in Saudi Arabia.”[19]
There was also much talk of jihad,
“a word that may have multiple meanings. It may mean that the faith needs financial support, or that an effort should be made to convert new believers. Or it may mean violence; violent jihad is a historical constant in Islam.”[20]
Hirsi Ali never liked this kind of talk very much. She was attracted to the West: “For me Britain and America were the countries in my books were there was decency and individual choice. The West to me meant all those ideas…”[21]  She was hoping that Boqol Sawm was exaggerating. She was hoping that he was distorting the true content of the Quran, for she did not wish her religion to preach death to all those will not convert. So she got the book. She could not read Arabic, so “I bought my own English edition of the Quran and I read it so I could understand it better. But I found that everything Boqol Sawm had said was in there. Women should obey their husbands. Women were worth half a man. Infidels should be killed.”[22]
By the time the 9/11 attacks happened Hirsi Ali was living in Holland. There is, of course, a controversy about the authorship of those attacks. But that is not the point here. The point is how they were perceived in the Muslim world, where it was assumed by many that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind, and where the same people accepted that he had done it in the name of Islam. Dutch TV cameras showed Muslim kids in Holland jubilating in the streets over the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. Even so, Hirsi Ali’s Dutch friends—no doubt influenced by the constant apologies for Islam that routinely flood the Western media—didn’t want to believe that this had anything to do with ‘real’ Islam, a supposedly peaceful religion. Talking to a friend on her way to the office the next day, Hirsi Ali began what would become her lifelong duty: to inform Westerners about what Islam preaches, and the danger that her former religion poses to liberty and sanity everywhere. “I couldn’t help myself. Just before we reached the office, I blurted out, ‘But it is about Islam. This is based in belief. This is Islam.’ …I walked into the office thinking, ‘I have to wake these people up.’ ” That’s what Hirsi Ali has been trying to do ever since: wake up Westerners. As she explains about the violence of 9/11,
“This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam… There were tens of thousands of people, in Africa, the Middle East—even in Holland—who thought this way. Every devout Muslim who aspired to practice genuine Islam—the Muslim Brotherhood Islam, the Islam of the Medina Quran schools—even if they didn’t actively support the attacks, they must at least have approved of them.”[23]
Some of my readers may be wondering, ‘But then why is Obama supporting a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt? Could it be that he doesn’t understand what the Muslim Brotherhood stands for?’

Is President Barack Hussein Obama misinformed about Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood?
_______________________________
Lots of people seem to think that objectionable US foreign policy should be explained on the basis of the supposed ignorance or thick-headedness of US leaders. But if US policy appears to contradict what you believe reasonable, there is an obvious alternative to proposing that US leaders are misinformed madmen. The alternative says that US leaders have different values than your own, but they lie in public about their real intentions (so that you will think they do share your values). This alternative hypothesis has the advantage of being reasonable. It does not force us to say that the most powerful people in the world—in charge of a vast and sophisticated information-gathering system—are stupider, crazier, or less well-informed than the average blogger.
The point is perfectly general, but in the case of Barack Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood we can give a rather sharp demonstration.
Some have argued that Obama is in reality a closet Muslim, and they point to the words “My Muslim faith,” which did indeed slide inadvertently from his lips during an ABC News television interview.[24]  Others consider the error completely innocent: Obama meant to say “My alleged Muslim faith” and merely failed to pronounce the word “alleged.” But whatever the facts of Obama’s inner religious convictions, the facts of his upbringing and family background are not in dispute. President Obama spent his childhood in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, and for this reason alone one could expect him to be well informed about Islam. If that were not enough, Obama is descended, on his father’s side, from Muslims.[25]  As mentioned earlier, when he insisted that representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be present at a speech he gave in Egypt in 2009, he went out of his way to praise Islam, repeatedly, and demonstrated that he can quote from the Quran ex tempore. So Obama is not misinformed about Islam. And since he knows the Quran, he knows, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali also does, that the book calls for the slaughter of infidels.
But, in particular, Obama cannot be misinformed about the Muslim Brotherhood. For you see, his own Muslim family is from Nyang’oma Kogelo, in the extreme Western end of Kenya.
Islam is still a minority religion in Kenya (about 10%), and Muslims are mostly on the coast, in the East. In the West, the first Muslim missionaries did not arrive until the very late 19th c. As a consequence, Muslim converts in this area—the area from which Obama’s family hails—are mostly the consequence of Muslim Brotherhood proselytizing, which became especially intense from the 1970s onward. So Obama’s Muslim family, and in particular his father (whom Obama himself explains was “raised a Muslim” [25a]) must be quite familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood message that Ayaan Hirsi Ali (above) witnessed in Kenya: death to all infidels and, especially, death to the Jews.
Also, Obama has to know that the terrorist organization Hamas, in control of the Gaza strip, which has a border with Egypt, and pledged to destroy the Jewish state, is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because Hamas makes no secret of this, and the information is published in Article 2 of the Hamas Charter, which the Avalon Project at Yale University has made public on the internet:
“ARTICLE 2: The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.”[26]
Here then are the facts of US foreign policy. After sending billions upon billions of dollars in US armament to the Egyptian military since 1974, Obama—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite—now wants the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of all that armament. This, Obama—or, more precisely, the US ruling elite—is doing with a perfect understanding of what the Muslim Brotherhood is and what it intends to do: destroy Israel.
Does this agree with the history of US foreign policy? Perfectly. It has nothing to do with Obama per se but with the longstanding goals of the US ruling elite.[27]
The future, coming soon
_____________________
Other Muslim countries besides Egypt have been experiencing protests and revolts of late. In every case, it is the Muslim Brotherhood taking the lead, and the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. In Tunisia, the main opposition to the deposed president was the Islamist movement Enahda, now legalized as a party. Enahda traces its roots to the Muslim Brotherhood.[28]  In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood “is the best-run opposition movement.”[29]  And in Syria everything indicates that the Muslim Brotherhood is the main force behind the recent unrest.[30]
The US government is lending support to all of these revolts. It appears, therefore, that the Brotherhood is poised to gain lots of power in the Muslim world, in the short term. No surprise, then, that the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood is expressing such satisfaction with the course of developments.[31]
.

The future, sooner than you think, will show us a Muslim world universally run by the Islamist offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, where a child learns to hate and fear Jews, literally, at his mother’s teat. Where the goal of everything is a Universal World Government of Islam. Where killing the remaining obstacles—the infidels who will not convert—is a glorious undertaking, and to die in the process ensures a ticket to Heaven.
All of this, courtesy of US leaders (who are apparently in a great hurry).

_____________________________________________________
Footnotes and Further Reading
___________________________________________________________
[1] A golden opportunity?; Islam and the Arab revolutions; The Economist, April 2, 2011, FRONT BRIEFING, 2162 words.
[2] Schmitt, B. E. (1936). Review: American Neutrality, 1914-1917. The Journal of Modern History, 8(2), 200-211. (p.203)
[3] Federal News Service; February 2, 2011 Wednesday; STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING; BRIEFER: PHILIP J. (P.J.) CROWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS;  LOCATION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, STATE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.; SECTION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; LENGTH: 9136 words
[4] “Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press?: The red pill…”; Historical and Investigative Research; 3 Jan 2006; by by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/national-security.htm
[5] January 28 CNN interview with Frank Wisner:
[Excerpt from CNN transcript]
MORGAN: Frank, let me start with you. It seems everyone is trying to make out this is a huge surprise and yet resentment towards Mubarak has been building for years. President Obama warned him many times, he must do something about this. So, it’s not much of a surprise, is it really?
FRANK WISNER, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO EGYPT: Well, I think the slow developing situation, even the incidents that have marked this year, the explosion at promise in Alexandria, the beating and killing of a businessman earlier, all these were events that signaled that on top of the disconnect, trouble was brewing. But I don’t think you can ever predict exactly when the crisis will erupt. And, if you will, this crisis with its — the predicate in Tunisia, has come on very quickly. I don’t think anyone, and certainly not the Egyptian government, is completely taken by surprise. We have known that the end of the Mubarak period would be with us in some reasonable time frame. We’ve been thinking in these terms.
So maybe the day, but the situation is not a surprise.
[Excerpt from CNN transcript]
SOURCE: “Crisis in Egypt”; CNN, January 28, 2011 Friday, NEWS; International, 6757 words, Piers Morgan, Ben Wedeman, Nic Robertson, Wolf Blitzer, John King, Amir Ahmed, Fran Townsend, Richard Grenell, Robin Wright, Mohammed Jamjoom, Mark Coatney, Sarah Sirgany
[6] “…various Middle Eastern news sources report that the administration insisted that at least 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s chief opposition party, be allowed to attend his speech in Cairo on Thursday.”
SOURCE: “Brotherhood” Invited To Obama Speech By U.S.”; The Atlantic; Jun 3 2009; By Marc Ambinder.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/06/-brotherhood-invited-to-obama-speech-by-us/18693/
[7] President Obama’s Egypt Speech, 4 June 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANk9qydfGe4
[8] STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING; BRIEFER: PHILIP J. (P.J.) CROWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS; LOCATION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, STATE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.; Federal News Service, January 31, 2011 Monday, STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING, 8733 words
[9] “CRISIS IN EGYPT; ANGRY BURST”; ABC News Transcript, February 1, 2011 Tuesday, 617 words
[10] Federal News Service; February 2, 2011 Wednesday; STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING; BRIEFER: PHILIP J. (P.J.) CROWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS;  LOCATION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, STATE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.; SECTION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; LENGTH: 9136 words
[Excerpt begins here]
Q: Can you talk about the Muslim Brotherhood? Can you talk about the Muslim Brotherhood and whether there have been any contacts with them, and whether you think that the Muslim Brotherhood should be part of any political process? You say you’re not going to anoint anybody, but what if a figure from Muslim Brotherhood emerges as the primary candidate to lead the country?
MR. CROWLEY: All right, again –
Q: Specifically on the Muslim Brotherhood.
MR. CROWLEY: We have not met with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Q: Have you spoken with — (off mic)?
(Cross talk.)
Q: Okay, but — no, but what if — should they be part of the political process?
MR. CROWLEY: We have had no contact with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Q: But should they be part of a political process? They obviously have a following in the country.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, that is up to them. They are — they are a fact of life in Egypt.
They are highly organized. And if they choose, and if they choose to participate and respect the democratic process, that is a — those are decisions to be made, you know, inside Egypt.
You know, the army obviously will play a role in this transition. There are — there are a broad variety of political figures, political groups, political actors that can participate if they choose. These are decisions to be made inside Egypt.
Q: Have you met with –
Q: P.J.
Q: Have you asked to meet the Muslim Brotherhood?
MR. CROWLEY: No.
Q: Why not?
Q: (Off mic) — that the army — that the –
Q: I mean, you’ve met with other opposition members. Who — can you say who’ve you met with? Ayman Nour. You’ve met with — can you give a –
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t — I don’t have a list here. We are doing an aggressive, active outreach to a broad range of figures. We have always done that. We’re going to continue to do that. We’ve been very active in the last few days.
I can’t detail all the people we have and have not. You asked a specific question. We have not had contact with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Q: Why don’t you meet with the Muslim Brotherhood? What’s the reason not to meet with them?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m — you know, we will meet with figures. If we — if we meet with anyone on those lines, we’ll let you know.
Q: Did you give conditions before you meet the people?
Q: P.J., are you saying that the reports about the meeting with — that Ambassador Wisner has had with the Muslim Brotherhood representatives if false?
MR. CROWLEY: I was in touch with Ambassador Wisner on the airplane as he was coming back. He had two meetings, one with President Mubarak and one with Vice President Suleiman.
Q: Why is –
Q: So is the report false or is it not false?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I — I’m just telling you he had two meetings. So if you’re — if you’re saying, did Mr. Wisner meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, the answer is no.
[Excerpt ends here]
[11] “Al Arabiya” | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Arabiya
[Consulted Sunday, May 08, 2011]
[12] Federal News Service; February 14, 2011 Monday; INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (AS RELEASED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT) INTERVIEWER: HISHAM MELHEM, AL ARABIYA LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C. DATE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011; SECTION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; LENGTH: 1512 words
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)