Wednesday, December 3, 2014

It may apparently or possibly be certain

The above is a contorted title that's headlining an article which is discussing a contorted editorial piece. And that piece was written by the editors of the notorious New York Times under the title: “In Egypt, a Verdict Turns Back the Clock,” published on December 2, 2014 in the Times.

When editors begin a discussion like this: “The Egyptian court … may have closed the final chapter...” and go on to say this: “Mr. Mubarak apparently will go free,” they show how wobbly they are about the information they possess. Thus, you expect them to write an editorial that does not pretend to be anything but tentative. But that's not what the editors of the Times do because – right after guessing that Mubarak may or may not go free – they assert this: “and there will be no justice or accountability...” Notice that there is no perhaps or maybe in this assertion; it is certainty that only the Times can have about Egypt.

Even though the editors know enough about the procedures involved in the Egyptian system of justice to realize that “the public prosecutor could appeal the case to the Court of Cassation” they continue to push forth their favorite theme which is that Egypt is not doing the right thing. Their usual remedy being that the Obama administration must sabotage Egypt's effort to deliver to its people a normal life that is free of Jewish inspired harassment, the editors express their dismay at the administration in this manner: “In a bizarre response, a State Department spokeswoman offered diplomatic pablum when asked to comment on the verdict and referred queries to the Egyptian government.”

Can you believe this? She refers queries about Egypt to the Egyptians? How much more bizarre can it get? Has America gone mad? Has the State Department gone mad? Has that woman gone mad? Make of it what you will, my friend, but there should be no surprise here because the aim of the editors and the clique to which they belong – being to poison the relations between Egypt and America – they always have a plant at questioning that tries to create a gotcha moment involving Egypt and the American administration.

And then it happened that shortly after the New York Times editorial appeared on the website, it was announced that, having cited flaws in the Mubarak verdict, the public prosecutor in Egypt was appealing the case to a higher court. So the question we must ask is this: What could have motivated the editors of the Times to throw journalistic caution to the wind, and rush to publish an editorial as risky as that?

Well, there is no doubt they have some kind of volcano in the belly that never stops spewing anti-Egypt molten lava. Every time they see an opportunity – however slight it may be – to say that Egypt is doing the wrong thing, they latch on to it and make the most of it. This time, they latched on to this: “President el-Sisi … seemed to rule that out.” That, being the possibility of appeal.

But they know that the President made it clear on several occasions he cannot interfere with the judicial process. So then, what else was there to make them ignore that reality? Here is what they say happened: “Mr. Sisi said Egypt must 'look to the future' and 'cannot ever go back.'” And that was enough for them to take the risk, and publish an editorial that was rendered moot before a handful of people had the time to read it.

But why? Why would the majestic Gray Lady of yesteryear allow herself to sink to such depth? Considering the problems that America is facing at home and abroad – and no apparent solution in sight to alleviate any of them – why pretend to have simple solutions for Egypt that can be applied as quickly as snapping the fingers?

That's because they believe that America is perfect and does not make mistakes. If it has problems – be they domestic or international – they must be foreign problems affecting America. And this suggests that America's problems can only be solved by fixing the rest of the world.

But wait a minute. This is a Jewish concept that did not come to America till the Jews took over the country. How come America has adopted it so willingly? Well, maybe that's what's wrong with America. If that's the case, let it be said that the New York Times suffers from the disease of being dominated by a Jewish board of editors.