Maddow Guest Undermines Her Premise of US Propping Up Mubarak Regime
Something unusual happened on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show the other night -- a guest expressed an opinion that didn't dovetail with Maddow's. This doesn't occur often, presumably not by accident.
Here is an exchange on Monday between Maddow and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, now the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, over political upheaval in Egypt and the extent to which Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is an American puppet --
[Video after page break]
MADDOW: In terms of those hard questions, though, I mean, there is the great atmospheric problem here, which is that the United States saying that it is in effect in support of the protesters, that it is willing to support regime change in Egypt is only in the context of the fact that the United States has made the Mubarak presidency possible in so many ways over the past 30 years. Will the Arab world ever care what we have to say any more about strongmen given our record of propping them up?
INDYK: Propping them up is a strong word. I mean, Mubarak is the pharaoh of Egypt. He didn't really need us to prop him up. He stands at the top of a military regime that took power in 1952 in a revolution when they overthrew the former king and, you know, he stands on his own two feet. But ...
MADDOW: Is ...
INDYK: ... the United States has worked closely with him for a number of very good reasons that have served American interests very well. His predecessor, Anwar Sadat, made peace with Israel. That was the critical breakthrough which made it impossible for other Arab leaders to consider making war with Israel. It began the peace process. I think you'd agree that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a good thing and Mubarak has played a very important role in that regard.
MADDOW: But, but, so ...
INDYK: When it came to taking on Saddam Hussein, Mubarak was very supportive, gave us political cover and logistical support. When it comes to Afghanistan, the way that we can use Egypt as a transit route and through the Suez Canal is very important. So there are many strategic interests which are served by the relationship with Hosni Mubarak.
MADDOW: He's also been very well served by $2 billion a year, though, since the Camp David accords. I mean, the Egyptian military is the tenth largest in the world because it's full of F-16s and M1A1 Abrams tanks and Chinook helicopters and Tow missiles and all the rest of it. I mean, we may not be propping him up, but I'm not sure that he's standing on his own two feet given that that's the second largest recipient of US arms and US aid after Israel.
INDYK: Well, it's even more bizarre than that because he's receiving the military aid because he made peace with Israel. It's all part of the peace treaty deal. Israel gets $2 billion and Egypt gets around $1.3 billion. But the silver lining if you're looking for it in that military relationship is that that does give us considerable influence with the Egyptian military today. We train, equip, pay for, exercise with and have built military to military relations for 30 years with the Egyptian military. And so now I think that the word is coming from our generals to their generals, don't even think about firing on the demonstrators.
"But the silver lining if you're looking for it in that military relationship," Indyk said -- if you're looking for it the operative phrase here. Which Maddow clearly isn't. She'd prefer invoking the venerable liberal meme of Amerika the Bully propping up tinpot "strongmen" around the world -- even though the premise took a huge hit over the last decade with the US-led ouster of a strongman in Iraq.
The response from the left to this departure from the decades-long pattern of American support for authoritarian regimes, one extending back to the birth of the Cold War and supported by leaders of both major parties? To vilify George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as war criminals.
In case Maddow has forgotten, the architect of the Camp David accords that she cited, which led to the US aid to Egypt she mentioned, was none other than former president Jimmy Carter, left-wing oracle for all matters Middle Eastern.
As Indyk also pointed out, the American assistance to Egypt that Maddow finds so distasteful (lions and tigers and tanks, oh my!) has not only helped keep the peace with Israel for 30 years, a span of biblical proportion by Mideast standards, it provides the United States with leverage to influence the Egyptian military -- "don't even think about firing on the demonstrators."
Would that a similar arrangement existed between the United States, China and Taiwan in June 1989.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Heh, Richy Madcow isn't having a very good week, is (s)he?
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:16pm.
Imagine my distress. :-)
Maybe, like in the case of Obama (who claims he went to Columbia U but no one in "class" remembers ever seeing him there,) we should ask to see her credentials.
The "educational" ones, I mean.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The agenda is so obvious it's
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:15pm.
The agenda is so obvious it's funny when people come on and do not answer questions the way these folks want them answered.
Hmmmm....what about Honduras, Rachel?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:24pm.
She'd prefer invoking the venerable liberal meme of Amerika the Bully propping up tinpot "strongmen" around the world -- even though the premise took a huge hit over the last decade with the US-led ouster of a strongman in Iraq.
Oh right, SNAP! Obama and Hillary tried to prop up the Honduran Tinpot, didn't they? Even after the Honduran Supremes had voted NO! EXTENDED! TERM!. Funny how that works, isn't it? Obama has thus far been happy be on the wrong side in just about every one of these situations, from OUR national interest.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Cost benefit?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:45pm.
Rachel what is the cost benefit of having peace in the Middle East between Israel and Egypt?
What do you reckon the cost of having a closed Suez Canal will cost Egyptians -- my God Rachel it's one of the very few revenue sources for Egypt -- and everyone else in the world if that were to happen?
Do you think it's worth $1.2 billion a year even though it is not as pure as you think you want everything to be.
Let's start thinking about what is good for America for a change before we think about what is warm and fuzzy for folks anywhere else.
America should be about mercantilism all over the world and we should be ruthless in protecting our country's interests and those of its citizens. Period!
The rest of the time I don't think we should care about the sexual proclivities of Islamists or the political rantings of dictators in Venezuela or Yemen. You maybe should because if America should withdraw into some kind of shell of perfection you will be cast overboard and you know what I'm talking about Rachel.
How's that paint coming Rachel? Is the corner comfy?
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:58pm.
So Maddow opposes taking out strongmen and she opposes working with them also. OK, she is anti war no matter what and screams for "diplomacy" and then opposes the diplomacy her hero put into motion? Gee Rachel, what position do you have left to take?
It must suck more and more to be Rachel every day.
For some reason
Submitted by donabernathy on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 3:18pm.
Hans Blinker comes to mind.... sometin' bout a lil Dutch boy and his finger....
roflmmfao
Which is more true?
Submitted by Twig1976 on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 5:43pm.
Either Ms. Maddow is dumber than a bag of hammers or she has an agenda. While both are true statements, which is more true?
Owned again
Submitted by libfail on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 7:32pm.
Gotta be hard to supposedly be so smart, and yet get your butt kicked every night. Embarrassing.
neither true. legit debate is so foreign you can't recognize it.
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:14am.
that's the problem with some oh y'all — witnessing the debate of two people who disagree... it's so foreign that when two people actually have intellectual discourse you only hear the points you want to hear. the rest is charlie brown's teacher and therefore dumb as ...>sigh< a bag of hammers... (how many hammers smart is the person who came up with that one?)
maddow may oppose the view of her guest. she's allowed. she is a political commentator. but at least she is prepared to challenge such a person. it doesn't mean she had or regularly has her butt kicked. just because her guest has opposing opinions and gets the opportunity to express them, means she is willing to be challenged and challenge.
i know. i know. it's a foreign concept to a few around here.
when was the last time beck or hannity or palin actually had an unscripted debate with someone who was prepared to joust? pffftt. maddow would hand each of those people their a$$es in a NY minute.
that's what makes maddow's show interesting (although most conservatives steer clear).
i've never seen maddow cut off someone mike's and threaten them with physical harm if they don't SHUT UP, a known conservative debate tactic.
oh come now
Submitted by michiganruth on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 2:09am.
you know, I try not to make snide remarks on comment boards; I usually try to stick to the subject. but your post is so egregiously ignorant I have to say something about it.
I am a regular Fox watcher and not once--NOT ONCE--have I ever seen anyone "threatened with physical harm" or non-physical harm or indeed threatened in any way at all. I'm sorry Miss or little man or whoever you are, but you're either really ignorant or deliberately lying.
of the "Beck Hannity Palin" trio you want to see "unscripted," if you knew ANYTHING about what you were talking about, you'd know that:
a) Beck doesn't have guests at all,
b) Palin doesn't have a SHOW at all, and
c) Hannity, far from not having opposing viewpoints, has spent two segments this week arguing with a radical Islamist preacher who has pretty successfully been yelling him down.
as far as old Rachel herself, sure, she's smart. she was a Rhodes scholar! if you didn't know that already, stick around: someone's bound to mention it any minute on MSNBC.
and there's nothing wrong with her brains: just her political ideology, integrity, and self-awareness.
abeautifulperson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 1:39am.
in actuality, as a poster here at NB's, is not. It is an odiferous, hit and run liberal troll, who in all likelihood is a pathological liar; witness statements saying that a conservative debate tactic is cutting off a mike and threatening physical harm. Then again, maybe this fart breath troll actually believes that cutting off a mike somehow relates to a part of the human anatomy. Rest assured that if it does, Rachel Maddow only wishes she had that particular anatomical appendage. Regardless, Rachel Maddow does not even ascend to the category of flyweight in the arena of debate. "Twit" weight sounds about right, though.