Romney tells Israeli newspaper: The Arab Spring is Obama's fault

[WhyteRain]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5207

So sayeth Romney:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if Obama had been more like Bush, Mubarak would have offered free and fair elections without a fight, and they wouldn't have elected Islamists?

Correct.  The Egyptian "Spring" began in Jan, 2011.  There were regularly scheduled elections in Sept, 2011.  In the eight month interim, Bush would have fostered a secular opposition -- remember the only opposition that Mubarek permitted was the MB.  Obama chose not to do that.  Instead, he demanded Mubarek resign immediately, with the result that the MB was effectively the only organized party that was ready for the elections.

[WhyteRain]

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

Any objective analysis would conclude that the Democrats are far more into using religion to prop up their policies -- from Obama claiming that Jesus would support his budget to Nancy Pelosi claiming that her job as Speaker was to implement policies that comport with the Gospels to the ubiquitous Democrats braying about "What Would Jesus Cut?".  Oh, and Congressional Democrats demanding more support from churches for their policies.

[WhyteRain]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.

No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Leftists automatically claim any election of anti-Americans is automatically "free and fair", but the web says differently.  Google "fraud tunisian elections" and then do the same for every other Arab Winter election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It appears that the Clinton's pals in the Arabian peninsula are putting their petrodollars -- fattened by Leftist opposition to oil development in the U.S. -- to good use:  Bankrolling the U.S. Secretary of State and the Islamist parties.

Is there any wonder that U.S. policy has changed and Hillary now calls the MB takeover of Egypt a "positive" development?