What, did you want her to condemn the democratically elected leader?
That's a red herring.
Of more interest is how Obama (or Hillary, acting on his instructions?) did what was necessary to ensure there would be no secular, non-Mubarek-connected opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood in the elections.
Simple. They didn't. Why on Earth would they have, unless they wanted Shafik?
Why wouldn't the Obama Admin want the MB to win? They seemed happy enough when it did.
And, yes, by calling for Mubarek's immediate resignation they ensured there would be no "breathing room" between the Jan 2011 anti-Mubarek uprising and the already-scheduled Sep 2011 elections for a secular, non=Mubarek opposition to get organized.
No, I'm asking you why
would they want the Ikhwan to win? Until and unless you give some sort of comprehensible foreign policy reason for the Obama administration to root for an organization that gave the world Sayyid Qutb among other people I'm going to assume you don't have one. They 'seemed happy enough' because the Ikhwan
won a democratic election, which in case you didn't notice was the first in Egypt, ever.
They called for Mubarak's immediate resignation because
there was a revolution against him and he was clubbing demonstrators in the streets. How in God's name was there less 'breathing room' between February 2011 and May 2012, even under a thermidorean government, than there would have been between February 2011 and September of the same year under the original dictator, anyway?
