antiwar.com
So you thought it was only the wackos on the neocon right who support Mubarak? Wrong! I’m listening right now to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s resident ultra-liberal, attack Rand Paul for being “offshore” because he calls for ending the $1.5 billion in “aid” to the Egyptian military.
”Offshore”?
Well, uh, yes, because you see “politics stops at the water’s edge,” everyone in both parties supports the President’s non-policy regarding the Egyptian events, and only “offshore” (read: off-the-wall) types, like the “isolationist” (Rachel’s word) Rand Paul think otherwise. Stupidly, she lumps in Paul with John “Invade the World” Bolton — who supports Mubarak (just like the Obama administration, which continues to fund Mubarak’s secret police thugs). She also noted that Paul wants to end aid to Israel — “Of course,” as she put it.
“Of course”? Really? Rand Paul’s bravery in sticking his neck out on this sensitive issue is to be commended — but not if you’re Rachel Maddow, who has never — ever — critcized Israel on her oh-so-”liberal” show.
Back when she was just another Air America airhead, Maddow invited me to be on her program: I declined, just because I wasn’t in the mood for liberal bromides that day. I thought she was a hack then, and now that she’s famous she’s even more of a partisan hack than before.
What I’d like to know is this, though: why does Maddow think funding the Egyptian torture machine, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, is good for America? How does it serve our legitimate interests? Is it “stimulus” money? Does she just support any and all government spending as a matter of high principle? Or does she really think it’s a good idea for us to be subsidizing a regime so brutal that even the US State Department characterizes it as “repressive”?
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel — you can’t be serious. The Egyptian people want us to stop supporting Mubarak: it’s that simple. If that’s “offshore,” then so be it.
No comments:
Post a Comment