Not only is The New York Times editorial page known for often being thin on facts, it is known for its cheerleading of the Obama administration—especially the administration’s shortsightedness regarding the Middle East.
To prove that point, they recently published their March 4 editorial: Egypt Needs to Act. In the course of attempting to make their argument, the Times not only butchered the facts, they praised the terrible decision by the Obama administration to hand Egypt wads of US money. Go figure.
They hailed Obama’s decision to send $250 million of hard-earned, taxpayer money to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt as “a vote of confidence in a country that is critical to stability in the region . . .”
That quarter of billion dollars would have produced better results if it had been reduced to ashes in the treasury department’s incinerator. You may think that is an exaggeration, but think about it: The money will be handed out to the brotherhoods cronies and to enable them to continue buying tear gas to blind true freedom-loving young people who have been peacefully demonstrating against Egypt’s new dictatorship. The dictatorship is Islamist and not secular, which pleases President Obama, so the money gets forwarded without restraint.
The US government has given money to foreign countries in the past for various reasons. But when previous seasoned politicians and diplomats did that, it was usually tied to concrete demands that were consistent with American values and interests. In Egypt’s case, there are no demands, no required results.
In the absence of any stipulations, the cheerleaders in The New York Times editorial page were content to reference a weak statement by Secretary of State John Kerry, saying, “Mr. Kerry urged all Egyptians to ‘come together’ to meet the country’s challenges . . .” Really?
The secular political parties in Egypt have indeed united for the sake of meeting those challenges. They recently issued five conditions for beginning a genuine dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood government, and yet they were ignored like a barking puppy.
The editorial page was also content with the rest of Kerry’s statement, that the US is “committed not to any party, not to any one person, not to any specific political point of view.” Again, really? This is the same John Kerry who, as a senator, badgered President Mubarak to give the Islamic opposition a voice in government.
What is wrong with demanding that a government forbid its thugs from preventing Christians and other liberal groups from entering a polling booth?