Look at this passage: “He is likely to get even stronger
support. But it's unlikely that he can succeed in stabilizing the economy. The
bet on him is not likely to pay off”. There are two “likelies” and one “unlikely”
in this supposedly confident presentation. That should tell you what kind of
presentation it is.
The three quoted sentences are not an observation followed
by analysis followed by a conclusion. No. It is the whining of an exuberant
expectation that came crashing with a loud thud, offering no hope it will get
back on its feet. What remains after the wishful thinking has evaporated is an
obsession that refuses to die.
The above 29-word quotation is a small part of the 86-word
closing paragraph with which the editors of the Washington Post end their
argument concerning the situation in Egypt . They had visions of an Egypt – the most populous Arab country – going
the way of Iraq , Libya and Syria , gifting them with images of
a million dead, millions of refugees fleeing the country, and enough misery to
pump an ocean of joy into their sick hearts, their diseased minds, and their
decomposing souls. When none of this happened, they sat down, curled up and
cried.
The editorial of whine and bitterness came under the title:
“A bad bet on Egypt 's
strongman,” published on November 24, 2016 in the Washington Post. Like the
sickos who came before them (I dare say also those who will come after them,)
the editors of the Washington Post gathered false pieces of information, which
they claim are related to the Egyptian economy, and constructed an argument
around them that is as shallow as they are embarrassingly useless journalists.
They say this: “He [Sisi] squandered tens of billions of
dollars provided by Saudi Arabia
and other Persian Gulf allies on wasteful mega-projects, such as a new channel
for the Suez Canal .” Because it is widely
known that the Suez Canal project was entirely
financed with local currency – not with dollars that came from abroad – the
editors cannot claim they were not aware of this reality.
So then, we must ask: Why are they repeating the falsehood
that foreign money was used on the Canal project? They are repeating it because
they are desperate. They have nothing solid on which to stand for saying
“meanwhile, he [Sisi] conducted the most sweeping campaign against dissent,”
and so they latched onto a straw and used it to make a point that's as flimsy
as they are embarrassingly useless journalists.
We know what their current obsession is. But how, in
practice, did they envisage realizing their exuberant wishful thinking before
it became an obsession? Well, there is a passage in the article that provides a
clue as to what they had in mind: “The regime began rushing a new law through
parliament that would destroy what remains of independent civil society groups
… Five-year prison terms are mandated for anyone cooperating with a foreign
organization or conducting opinion polls without prior approval.” That says it
all.
It says they were counting on the foreign groups that went
into Egypt disguised as civil society but were as honest about the work they do
as the Bin Laden disciples who would get into America and tell the people they
came to help them and their children achieve higher goals in life. The Egyptians
– the people and their government – saw what the goals of the fake foreign
societies looked like, and rejected them at once.
They saw what the goals intended to accomplish in Egypt through
the thugs that the foreigners had trained and financed to set ablaze dozens of
churches in the country, hoping to spark a religious war. And they saw them
through the work of groups that pretended to help kids in developing countries,
but smuggled them out of the country. They sold these kids to crime syndicates
that ran global prostitution rings, and to killers that trafficked in human
organs.
There is one more question to ask: Who might have been the
instigator behind that editorial? Here is a clue as to who it might have been:
“The State Department seems to bet that Sisi will prove to be like Chile 's Augusto
Pinochet who managed to modernize his economy while engaging in 'repression.'”