Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

American 2016 Presidential Election thread part three

Recommended Posts

She's a cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A war hungry piece of shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary was 33 when Ronnie Reagan (who did nothing for early sufferers of AIDS) became president.

Is the smartest women in the room ignorant?

Why do so many of our LGBT warriors from the 80's hate the response (or lack thereof) of the Reagan's? Surely this great, compassionate, political mind would know better than to praise Nancy Reagan on her response to a critical issue for the LGBT community?

#FACTS

#BERNIE would never praise homophobes

Facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511479828

You know, I am only posting that to say Bernie has plenty of material like this, he's just not as well-vetted as Clinton. And THAT's what alarms me. I don't believe any of these polls saying Bernie would rout the GOP candidates (well, maybe Trump as his favorable numbers are toxic). There have been virtually no attacks on him other than the softballs Clinton's been throwing in the debates. Bernie may be a life-long progressive - the real deal - but he's a playground novice when it comes to fighting off the GOP attack machine.

That said, Bernie is going to have a string of wins this weekend - including in my state, Washington which is quite liberal. However, he's so far behind in the popular vote and delegates, it's pretty much over at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511479828

You know, I am only posting that to say Bernie has plenty of material like this, he's just not as well-vetted as Clinton. And THAT's what alarms me. I don't believe any of these polls saying Bernie would rout the GOP candidates (well, maybe Trump as his favorable numbers are toxic). There have been virtually no attacks on him other than the softballs Clinton's been throwing in the debates. Bernie may be a life-long progressive - the real deal - but he's a playground novice when it comes to fighting off the GOP attack machine.

That said, Bernie is going to have a string of wins this weekend - including in my state, Washington which is quite liberal. However, he's so far behind in the popular vote and delegates, it's pretty much over at this point.

Yeah he will have a few wins, though I think Hillary will win Arizona tomorrow and probably net more delegates as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bluejean

Yeah, I don't get it.

I think he means the gap in the guys teeth :rotfl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an Israeli, I'm not in the least surprised by any of it. The Middle East is a fucking jungle- eat or be eaten

Not just the Middle East...Hillary has never met an American military involvement she didn't support from her time as First Lady to candidate. Interventions, wars, more of the same....If Libya was "smart, humanitarian" power at its best," as Clinton says and wants to repeat in Syria I would seriously hate to see it at its worst. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just the Middle East...Hillary has never met an American military involvement she didn't support from her time as First Lady to candidate. Interventions, wars, more of the same....If Libya was "smart, humanitarian" power at its best," as Clinton says and wants to repeat in Syria I would seriously hate to see it at its worst. :(

That's not what I meant. But nevermind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. But nevermind

Well, the fact that she is more hawkish than Obama by all accounts... it is just another reason not to be surprised. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually read what the email is about? This has nothign to do with Bernie. It has to do with this war mongering piece of SHIT woman.

Are you crazy? :dead:

Hillary received an email that states a FACT (cause it's a fact that a sunnite/shiite war would please Israel) and crazy people say now that Hillary is a war monger?

This is really sick. They should stop releasing such important emails because clearly a majority of people are too uneducated to even understand what it's about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ that's what I meant.

It's a fact that a war like that would benefit Israel. It's not a matter of opinion or some twisted plan made by an evil woman.

I know it's hard for some to understand, but like I said before, the Middle East is a fucking jungle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511479828

You know, I am only posting that to say Bernie has plenty of material like this, he's just not as well-vetted as Clinton. And THAT's what alarms me. I don't believe any of these polls saying Bernie would rout the GOP candidates (well, maybe Trump as his favorable numbers are toxic). There have been virtually no attacks on him other than the softballs Clinton's been throwing in the debates. Bernie may be a life-long progressive - the real deal - but he's a playground novice when it comes to fighting off the GOP attack machine.

That said, Bernie is going to have a string of wins this weekend - including in my state, Washington which is quite liberal. However, he's so far behind in the popular vote and delegates, it's pretty much over at this point.

Well that's one thing that is keeping my upbeat about the election. That in new polls Hillary wins in a landslide against Dump. There is really NOTHING else that could be thrown at Hillary. She has been attacked for decades at this point. And when it comes to Dump people are not on the fence about him either. You either love him or hate him. People are not going to be swayed all that much in any other direction at this point.

So the point is if Hillary after all the shit she has been through still beats Dump in a landslide in polls right now I think her chances of being the next President are pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you crazy? :dead:

Hillary received an email that states a FACT (cause it's a fact that a sunnite/shiite war would please Israel) and crazy people say now that Hillary is a war monger?

This is really sick. They should stop releasing such important emails because clearly a majority of people are too uneducated to even understand what it's about.

Well it wouldn't benefit the United States or a Clinton candidacy certainly but she is welcome to run on a platform pandering to the Jewish vote, it wouldn't be any more of a lie than what Trump just did declaring Iran as the worst state sponsor of terrorism and responsible for most of the terrorism in the Middle East. Isn't it actually the current White House is #1, Saudi Arabia is #2 and Iran is #3 ?? :stir:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary IS a war mongerer and she made decisions that have led to some of the worst sectarian violence in the entire middle east in decades and has led to one of the largest migrations of people in our modern history all based on a little email some advisor sent to her private email that was based on what Israel said would benefit them the most.

Now go over to the Brussels thread and blame ISIS and talk about god bless and blah blah bullshit and pretend like this is all some random pissed off muslims that are just mad at the world for no good reason. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm sure you were the same anti bush assholes with their douchey bumper stickers who were all outraged at the piss poor decisions that led the US to its two longest wars EVER.

But in Hillary's case oh whatever it was JUST an email get over it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right, now Hillary is responsible for Assad killing his own people, rebels unable to unite and terrorists taking over.

drevil_cover.jpg

Seriously, take some pills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right, now Hillary is responsible for Assad killing his own people, rebels unable to unite and terrorists taking over.

drevil_cover.jpg

Seriously, take some pills.

This comment alone makes it clear that you have NO IDEA WHO ISIS OR ASSAD ARE :rotfl:

Hurry, run and find some CNN or Fox News Articles on the ordeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just refresh some of you on Hillary's endless list of hypocritical flip floppery

Why Hillary Clinton voted for the anti-immigrant wall

By Bill Van Auken and SEP candidate for US Senator from New York

4 October 2006

Last May, in the wake of mass demonstrations that brought millions of immigrants to the streets in cities throughout the United States, New York’s Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton spoke with disdain for the Republican right’s proposals mandating a crackdown on foreign-born workers.

This Republican-backed legislation, which turned undocumented workers—as well as anyone who provided them with aid—into criminal felons, was the provocation that sparked the mass protests.

“I cannot and will not support one-sided solutions that sound tough but neither deal with our porous borders nor treat with respect and dignity the millions of families who live and work in our country,” Clinton declared.

Last Friday, however, she did exactly that, joining Senate Republicans and the majority of her Democratic colleagues in voting for an ignominious piece of legislation known as the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

The bill calls for the erection of 700 miles of fortified fencing stretching across the entire length of Arizona’s frontier with Mexico as well as portions of the southern borders of California, New Mexico and Texas. According to some estimates, the cost of such a massive project would reach $7 billion.

Last spring’s pretenses, by both Democrats and Republicans alike, of drafting a comprehensive immigration reform with a supposed path to legalization for undocumented workers (in reality leading nowhere for millions of them) has been swept aside. What is left of that abortive proposal is its reactionary essence—state repression.

Even some of the bill’s proponents acknowledge that completion of such a barrier is virtually impossible given the rugged terrain of much of the US-Mexican border and that whatever is built will do little to stem the tide of immigrants driven by economic deprivation to seek entry into the US. Even a massive deployment of the US military on the Mexican border would prove inadequate to maintain and defend such a structure.

The net effect of this reactionary measure will be to divert the flow of immigrants to even more dangerous crossings, driving up the already record number of deaths of migrant workers on the border. At the same time, it will impose a massive barrier to the economic and social relations that constitute the lifeblood of the border region in both the US and Mexico.

The virtual militarization of one of the longest borders in the world has profound political implications. For decades during the Cold War, US politicians regularly invoked the Berlin Wall erected by the East German Stalinist bureaucracy as a means of fomenting anticommunism. Now, in the midst of proclaiming a worldwide crusade for “democracy,” Washington has decreed that a far more extensive barrier be erected, a symbol of American capitalism’s repudiation of the most basic democratic and humane principles.

In response to the bill, Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, declared, “It is a shame that President Bush caved to the radical anti-immigrant right wing of his party” by accepting the legislation. If the Republican president’s bow to the right wing of his own party on the immigration issue is shameful, what then are the votes of supposed “liberals” like Hillary Clinton and 25 other Democratic senators in favor of the legislation? Reid was silent on this score.

For the Democrats as a whole, the vote on the immigration legislation is one more act of cowardice and cynicism. In many ways, it recalls the vote the party cast on the eve of the last midterm elections in 2002, when it gave unprecedented powers to the Bush administration to wage a war of aggression against

Iraq in order to get the issue off the table in contest with the Republicans.

This legislation has similarly far-reaching and ominous implications. In part, it endows the Secretary of Homeland Security with virtually limitless authority to “take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”

This sweeping language essentially amounts to another “blank check” granting the Bush administration the power to carry out extra-legal and dictatorial actions up to and including mass detentions and wars with Mexico and Canada.

Yet, in order to avoid being branded by the Republicans as “soft on illegals,” the majority of the Democrats in the Senate were willing to support this legislation. They did so under the whip of the Republican leadership, which blocked any review or discussion of the measure, much less the convening of a conference committee to seek changes in the version sent up by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

A deliberate appeal to anti-immigrant sentiments

In Hillary Clinton’s case, the vote has a deeper significance. As the reputed frontrunner in the contest for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, she is making a direct appeal to the same anti-immigrant sentiments that are being stoked by the right wing of the Republican Party.

The Republicans are politically divided on the issue, which has been utilized to whip up xenophobia and nativist reaction. At the same time, however, this anti-immigrant chauvinism cuts across the interests of the US financial oligarchy, the Republicans’ most important constituency, which depends upon a steady supply of cheap and repressed immigrant labor as a source of profit.

Clinton aims to exploit this division, opposing the Republican leadership from the right. This is a calculated strategy that she has been developing for several years.

Thus, in a 2003 interview with WABC radio in New York, she declared: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Continuing with what amounted to a backward rant against the foreign-born, she said, “People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

Clinton’s political calculations on the immigration question, as on the war in Iraq, democratic rights and social issues, are predicated on the political monopoly exercised by the Democratic and Republican parties, both organized for and by the corporations and wealthy elite.

The thinking of the New York senator and her political handlers runs along the following political lines: “Even if a vote for the anti-immigrant wall upsets Latinos and others, what are they going to do about it, vote for the Republicans?” On the other hand, by appealing to anti-immigrant sentiments, perhaps she can pick up some support from the Republicans’ right-wing base, or at least diminish its virulent hostility to her.

Her primary concern is obviously not reelection in November, with polls giving her a 30-point lead over her Republican opponent. Moreover, in New York, which boasts one of the largest concentrations of immigrants of any state in the country, intransigent opposition to the Republican-sponsored legislation would have easily won her more support than her vote for it.

Clinton’s eye is on the 2008 presidential contest, and it is evident that she aims to win the nomination on the most right-wing platform in the party’s history. Part of it, as evidenced by her vote last week, will be to promote attacks on immigrants as part of the phony “war on terrorism.”

This cynical and crude political strategy has consequences that go far beyond a potential boost for Hillary Clinton’s standing in the polls. They serve both to fan anti-immigrant sentiments and strengthen the development of dictatorial and authoritarian methods within the government itself.

Clinton’s support for the border wall underscores one fundamental political truth. The defense of the rights of immigrant workers and of working people as a whole is impossible outside of a direct challenge to the political monopoly exercised by the two parties controlled by big business.

This is the political purpose of my candidacy for the US Senate and the nationwide campaign being waged by the Socialist Equality Party. In challenging Clinton and the Democratic and Republican parties in the midterm elections, we aim to lay the political foundations for the birth and development of a new mass socialist party of the working class.

Such a movement can be built only on the basis of the firmest principles—above all, that of socialist internationalism. The SEP fights for the unification of the struggles of American working people with those of workers in every corner of the globe.

Within the US itself, the cutting edge of internationalism is the defense of the rights of immigrant workers. The SEP stands for the right of workers of every country to live and work where they choose. We reject every attempt to seal off the national borders to working people, while the transnational corporations and banks demand that these same borders be torn down to facilitate their worldwide search for the cheapest labor and best conditions for exploitation.

The SEP demands full and equal rights for all immigrants, including citizenship for the more than 12 million undocumented workers who have been turned into scapegoats by Republicans and Democrats alike with the aim of dividing the working class. We call for an end to all attacks on immigrants, including factory raids, detentions and deportations.

We urge all workers, students, youth and professionals who are repulsed by the antidemocratic and anti-immigrant politics of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and Republicans to vote for the SEP in the November election, study our party’s program and join in the struggle to develop the socialist alternative that is needed to put an end to war, oppression and poverty in the US and internationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment alone makes it clear that you have NO IDEA WHO ISIS OR ASSAD ARE

Yeah right, now thanks to you we know that ISIS and Assad are pawns of Hillary Clinton the warmonger :lmao:

But in Hillary's case oh whatever it was JUST an email get over it :rolleyes:

It's an email from an advisor stating a fact, how can you conclude that Hillary is a warmonger from that ridiculous email?

And by the way, have you even read the damn email? The whole paragraph is talking about THE FALL OF ASSAD. I'm going to quote if for you :

the fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region.

Now do you know that Assad is still in power, right? So your whole bullshit about how Hillary is a warmonger based on that email (which was just an analysis that never became real) is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS is a DIRECT result of the U.S.'s and its allies' failed policies in Iraq. Period. It has NOTHING to do with Assad. They saw an opportunity (a weak syria) and took huge swaths of land. The world sat by and did nothing about it and it wasn't until they started to approach Erbil, where all foreign owned oil companies are headquarter in Iraq, did anyone do anything to stop those barbarians. After it was way out of control.

Yes, Assad is in power because the U.S., with Hillary as its Secretary of State, thought ONCE AGAIN that all it would take to topple another sovereign state was to send tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons (many of which are now in the hands of ISIS) and train a few inexperienced "rebels" who would do the job for them. It was Bush's wildly premature Mission Accomplish shit all over again.

And guess what, Assad is STILL in power, his army is making huge advances throughout the country, including Raqqa, the U.S. has basically abandoned it's original training program because it was such a failure, the U.S. is now working with Russia, not the other way around, to find a solution for Syria, and Assad isn't going nowhere.

That's Hilary's legacy as Secretary of State in a nutshell. One huge failed policy across the middle east and a quickly deteriorating situation.

YAY FOUR - EIGHT MORE YEARS :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yay for her well-vetted foreign policy expertise. She must be the right choice. 😒

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and don't u just love how it was Saudi Arabia that caused 9/11 yet the only planes that were able to leave after 9/11 were Saudi royals and Bin Laden families?

And US still continues to have a strong relationship with them and no one mentions it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the drug mules conquering the almighty wall that Hillary's vote helped build a few years ago

19958901_BG2.jpg

main_900.jpg

:lmao::rotfl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

¡Mi chulo hasta chicano!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's Hilary's legacy as Secretary of State in a nutshell.

Your flip floppery is quite funny : 15 minutes ago you said that Hillary is a warmonger because she forwarded an email stating that if Assad should fall, it would cause a war between shiites and sunnis. And now you say the exact opposite : Assad is still in power and that's part of her legacy.

So what is your point exactly? Is she evil because (you suppose) she wants Assad to fall, or because he's still in power? :newspaper:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the drug mules conquering the almighty wall that Hillary's vote helped build a few years ago

19958901_BG2.jpg

main_900.jpg

:lmao::rotfl:

OMG, really funny!

Let's look at the list of Bernie's achievements :

...

...

...

...

...

...

Oh wait. :ohmy:

I guess it's easier to criticize Hillary's decisions because she had to make decisions in her life, unlike the junior Senator of Vermont...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen Frenchy, your opinion doesn't really matter to me. But whatever, here goes.

1. Hillary Clinton made decisions BASED ON THAT EMAIL AND MANY OTHERS LIKE IT. The decisions she made didn't even take into account the millions and millions and millions of citizens who would be affected by such a heinous and necessary war. The only thing on her mind when she made those decisions were that a sectarian war pitting sunnis and shiites would somehow benefit the west's and Israel's interests!!! HOW FUCKING SICK IS THAT?

2. Her only plan in Syria was to topple Assad's so-called regime and put in her people. And guess what, she FAILED. Just like she FAILED to put in the American-Born muslim brotherhood leader in Egypt. And just like she failed to put in her people in Libya. That's Hillary in a nutshell, one big embarrassing FAILURE. Can't even orchestrate a damn evil coup properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen Frenchy, your opinion doesn't really matter to me. But whatever, here goes.

:lmao:

1. The only thing on her mind when she made those decisions were that a sectarian war pitting sunnis and shiites would somehow benefit the west's and Israel's interests!!! HOW FUCKING SICK IS THAT?

And how do you know that? Can you read her mind?

You read ONE of her 70,000 emails and you can sense her whole policy? Are you psychic? That's ridiculous.

2. Her only plan in Syria was to topple Assad's so-called regime and put in her people. And guess what, she FAILED. Just like she FAILED to put in the American-Born muslim brotherhood leader in Egypt. And just like she failed to put in her people in Libya.

28a91b455fd5be0ccca52670393bcd88.jpg?ito

Seriously, what are you smoking? Why do you say she wanted to put "her people" in Syria, while it was a civil war from the very beginning? In Lybia you say it was Hillary and not crazy Sarkozy who killed Gaddafi? And Mohammed Morsi was "American born", really??? :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to say American-Educated candidate.

It's nice to know you're reading everything I write super carefully. I'll be a little more careful next time because that's how things roll around here. I type a little mistake and I'm smoking something and a government conspiracist.

Hillary makes mistake after mistake and it's all water under the bridge. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton Visits Egypt, Carrying a Muted Pledge of Support

CAIRO — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Egypt on Saturday for meetings with its newly elected Islamist president and the chief of its still-dominant military council, declaring that the United States “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.”

But after weeks of internal debate across the Obama administration over how to respond to the ongoing struggle between the president and the generals, Mrs. Clinton touched on it only lightly, saying she looked forward to working “to support the military’s return to a purely national security role.”

State Department officials said the meeting itself sent a historic message. Seated in an ornate room in the presidential palace, Mrs. Clinton smiled for cameras and traded pleasantries with President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist jailed more than once by the American-backed autocracy overthrown 18 months ago. She became the highest ranking United States official to meet Mr. Morsi since he was sworn in two weeks ago as Egypt’s first democratically elected president.

But her outreach to the new president appeared constrained by evident reluctance to address his struggle to pry power from the generals. Her muted tone, State Department officials said, reflected a growing sense that American attempts to intercede may be futile in a contest where the outcome remains uncertain, all the players are deeply suspicious of American motives, and almost any statement could elicit a popular backlash.

Instead of calling for an immediate handover of power as American officials have in the past, Mrs. Clinton instead emphasized only the need for “building consensus across the Egyptian political spectrum.” In brief remarks after the meeting with Mr. Morsi, her sole reference to the military decrees dissolving the Islamist-led Parliament and eviscerating his powers was a call for “consensus” among all sides in order “to work on a new constitution and Parliament, to protect civil society, to draft a new constitution that will be respected by all, and to assert the full authority of the presidency.”

A senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in a briefing to reporters, said Mrs. Clinton planned to deliver virtually the same message in a private meeting with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Egypt’s top military commander, as she did in public remarks on Saturday.

The goal, the official said, was “to engage in that dialogue and to avoid the kind of confrontation that could potentially lead to the transition veering off track,” while leaving the military’s decree taking over Parliament’s powers as a matter for Egyptians courts and politicians to decide.

Continue reading the main story

Related Coverage

slideshow

Secretary of State Clinton in Egypt JULY 14, 2012

Mrs. Clinton’s tone appeared softer than that of State Department comments made only a few weeks ago, when the military council had moved to disband Parliament on the eve of the presidential race. A State Department spokeswoman then publicly urged the generals to meet their “commitments to the Egyptian people” to turn over power and warned of consequences for the broader American alliance if they did not.

Mrs. Clinton’s visit appeared to be a triumph of pragmatism over idealism within the Obama administration, and perhaps even within the secretary herself.

As recently as two days ago, State Department officials said, Mrs. Clinton had planned to deliver a what was billed as a major speech about the Egyptian democracy on Monday, in Alexandria. But with Egypt’s contest for power in rapidly shifting flux, there were too many questions, too many pitfalls and too little new for Mrs. Clinton to offer, said several people briefed on the process. After rejecting at least three different drafts, Mrs. Clinton called off the speech virtually on the eve of her arrival.

Along with their core strategic concerns about maintaining a stable ally in Cairo and preserving the peace with Israel, State Department officials say they continue to hope that Egypt will move toward a more democratic and fully civilian form of government. But at the moment, American policy is beset from all sides.

The generals, who seized power last year after the ouster of the strongman Hosni Mubarak, have repeatedly rebuffed American pressure. The new president, Mr. Morsi, and the other leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood still harbor deep doubts about Washington’s agenda and have repeatedly surprised American officials in Washington with the accelerating pace of their moves to take power.

Implausibly, some of the Brotherhood’s secular opponents have even accused the United States of conspiring with the Islamists to push them to power. By nightfall Saturday, hundreds of protesters had gathered outside Mrs. Clinton’s hotel to protest against the claimed conspiracy. Using a transliteration of the Arabic word for the Brotherhood, one sign read: “If you like the Ikhwan, take them with you!”

“In some ways, all the talk in Washington about what to do in Egypt is incredibly inefficient,” said Peter Mandaville, a political scientist at George Mason University who until recently advised the State Department on Islamist politics in the region. “At a time of virtually zero U.S. influence, we don’t need to waste so much time figuring out how to try to get the Egyptian people to like us.”

In her remarks, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly commended the Egyptian people on the achievement of the country’s first free presidential election and stressed that Egyptians alone would decide their future. She talked as she had in the past about the importance of a peace treaty with Israel and the protection of individual, women’s and minority rights. And she said she would work with Congress and the Egyptian government on the details of delivering a $1 billion aid package that President Obama promised a year ago and which Egypt desperately needs.

But there was no indication that the administration planned to make any of the aid contingent on a full handover of power to civilians. Congress has already required Mrs. Clinton to certify that Egypt is taking steps toward democracy in order to keep delivering the current $1.5 billion in annual aid, which includes $1.3 billion in military equipment.

Officials say that the generals have repeatedly ignored American threats to withhold the aid as well as other entreaties from Washington. When a constitutional court was weighing a challenge to the electoral rules used to elect the Parliament, Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador, repeatedly urged the generals not to seize the chance to dissolve it, officials said.

The generals did it anyway. They did not flinch from taking back for themselves all legislative and budgetary authority just at the moment they had promised a handover.

Earlier this year, during a confrontation with the United States over three American-backed groups chartered to promote democracy, President Obama himself called Field Marshal Tantawi to underscore the threat that the United States might cut off aid if Egypt continued its crackdown on the groups. The military-led government had shut them down, filed criminal charges against their employees for operating without an official license, and accused them of manipulating Egyptian politics on Washington’s behalf.

The foreign citizens on trial were ultimately allowed to jump bail and flee Egypt. But about 15 Egyptian employees of the American groups and at least one United States citizen are still facing criminal charges, potentially including jail time. In her remarks on Saturday, Mrs. Clinton made no reference to the case, and the United States has continued to deliver the aid.

Some now argue that the Obama administration’s “hollow” threats have undermined whatever leverage over the generals the United States might have gained from its aid.

“The Egyptian military likely saw its suspicions as confirmed; in a tense standoff over democratization, the U.S. would buckle under pressure,” Shadi Hamid, research director of the Brookings Doha Center recently wrote in an essay arguing for a cutoff in aid. The ruling military council “continues to undermine Egyptian democracy, apparently confident that there will be few, if any, real consequences.”

The Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi, meanwhile, remain deeply wary of Washington’s goals even after a year of mutual outreach, diplomats say, while Brotherhood leaders appear still convinced American policy makers see Egypt exclusively through the prism of Israel’s security.

Despite open channels of communication, Brotherhood leaders have repeatedly surprised Washington with their brisk moves to challenge the generals: running for and winning more parliamentary seats than they said they would, breaking a pledge not to run a presidential candidate, and then last week using a presidential decree to call back the Parliament in defiance of the generals’ order dissolving it.

State Department officials said the pattern has only increased a residual distrust of the Islamists that it is already hard for the United States policy makers to overcome.

“Every bone in the body of the U.S. foreign policy establishment is going to feel more comfortable with the idea that there is still a strong military looking over these guys,” said Mr. Mandaville, the former State Department adviser, “and looking out for U.S. interests in Egypt and the region.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...