The editors of the New York Times (NYT) are demonstrating
once again how much they are addicted to the regime of self-induced ignorance
they long ago inflicted on themselves when pontificating on matters Egyptian.
Ironically, they are doing it this time on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 2013
in an editorial they titled: “Silencing Dissent in Egypt ”. If that's all they can be
thankful for, the time has come for America 's literate crowd to weep
about the fate that has befallen its Grey Lady.
In an effort to deliver a one-two punch on the nose of their
readers right at the outset, thus hope to gain their attention, the editors
begin their piece with a mix of an old cliché, and a more recent smart Alec
utterance. Steeped in the era of the Vietnam War when “military” was a
bad word, they employ the cliché “military-backed government” and mix it with
the childish muttering “dictatorship of Mubarak without Mubarak” to give their
readers a taste of the banality that is to follow.
They first assert that it was “in the name of crushing all
resistance” that the Egyptian authorities moved to ban most public protests.
Where the banality of their presentation begins is when they try to explain why
they regard such move as being a bad thing. To this end, they make four points:
(1) General Sisi owes his power to such protests; (2) Military leaders stood
aside in 2011 when protests in Cairo forced Mubarak to resign; (3) Sisi cited
large protests against Morsi to justify what they call the military coup; (4)
Sisi summoned millions of Egyptians into the streets to approve his crackdown
on Morsi supporters.
Well, if there is a reason on this Thanksgiving Day why
Americans cannot be thankful for something, it is that they have a class of
pundits in their midst such as the editors of the NY Times. And that's because
these people still do not realize that what they utter will not affect Egypt one fraction of an iota but will do
considerable damage to their own culture, to the reputation of America
abroad and ultimately to its finances and military strength.
Just because America
had a revolution and a civil war that made it a better country does not mean
that America
must continue to have revolutions and civil wars. By the same token, just
because millions of Egyptians publicly protested to demand a change in the way
that they were governed, does not mean that Egypt must continue to have public
protests by every group that feels like having one, anytime, anywhere it wants
to. And this is especially true since the millions of Egyptians who brought
about the change in government, are the same ones who now call for a period of
calm so that they may work on achieving the goals of their revolution.
And while that is the wish of the millions of Egyptians who
continue to express what it is that they want for their country, the half-wit
editors of the New York Times stack against them their own set of wishes for Egypt .
And how do they do that? You won't believe it, my friend. They do it by quoting
themselves. Yes, that's what they do. Just look at this piece of narcissistic
rubbish: “As The Times reported on Monday, opposition from the secular left is
growing.” But that's not all because they go on to lament: “Now, the real level
of opposition to the present government will be increasingly hard to judge.”
Judge, they say? They want to sit as judges, and determine what millions of
Egyptians can and cannot want for themselves? Is there a mental hospital in America
equipped to handle a case as severe as this?
Now that the editors of the Times have proven beyond the
shadow of a doubt they belong squarely in a mental hospital, they tell what
they think of the way that their own government is handling the Egyptian
situation. They say it was good that America severed its military
cooperation with that country but that it was bad Secretary of State John Kerry
said the move was “not a punishment.”
Ah, if only those who sit at Foggy Bottom would look through
the clear lens of AIPAC, they would see that Egypt 's transition to democracy is
not on track, and that punishment – yes, only punishment – will bring these
people online and have them march toward democracy. That would be Jewish style
democracy, of course, where you have the choice of praising Israel and the
Jews, or be sent to spend the rest of your life in the Jewish Gulag of the
blacklist.
And, when someone is as mental as these editors, it is not
surprising that they should re-scramble the things they scrambled before, and
chide the people who fail to see things as clearly as they do. This is what
prompted the Times editors to end their presentation like this: “The
administration has calculated it needs the Egyptian military for its regional
security, just as it believed that it needed Mr. Mubarak ... Egypt may be
doomed to repeat the mistakes of Mubarak, but American policy need not be.”
These are the people who professed their hatred for Mubarak
when he was in power; praised him after he was ousted, and now damn him for
being rehabilitated.
All of which says that when it comes to the editorial board
of the New York Times, the saying that applies most aptly is this: Once a
mental always a mental.