ElBaradei: Muslim Brotherhood Islamist takeover 'a myth'

Rick Moran
This is truly bizarre. Liberal commentator Alan Colmes triumphantly posts a quote from ElBaradei that "proves" us wingnuts are not reality based by worrying about a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood:

Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading voice of Egypt's opposition, told Fareed Zakaria on CNN that the American conservative fear put forth by people like John Bolton and Thaddeus McCotter that the Muslim Brotherhood will step in and take over Egypt if Hosni Mubarak falls is a myth without "one iota of reality."

And Colmes believes him? Takes him at his word? Ha'aretz:

Gamal Nasser, a spokesman for the Brotherhood, told DPA that his group was in talks with Mohammed ElBaradei - the former UN nuclear watchdog chief - to form a national unity government without the National Democratic Party of Mubarak.
The group is also demanding an end to the draconian Emergency Laws, which grant police wide-ranging powers The laws have been used often to arrest and harass the Islamist group.

Nasser said his group would not accept any new government with Mubarak. On Saturday the Brotherhood called on President Mubarak to relinquish power in a peaceful manner following the resignation of the Egyptian cabinet. 

What did Colmes expect him to say? He's coordinating with the Muslim Brotherhood to lead a new government.  Of course he's going to downplay the MB's past and their radical, anti-Semitic policies that, if implemented, would destroy the Camp David Accords and threaten the peace of the region.

ElBaradei told CNN host Fareed Zakaria that the MB is just a bunch of puppy dogs, wouldn't harm a fly:

ELBARADEI: I'm quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mabarak regime, that it's either us - the ruthless dictators - or a Muslim al-Qaeda type. The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because of liberal parties have been a struggle for thirty years. They are in favor of a secular state. they are of -they are in favor of an institution that have bread lines, they are in favor that every Egyptian have the same rights, that the state is in no way a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are as much a part of society as the markets that started here. I think this is a myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime and has no iota of reality. You know Fareed, I worked with Iranians, I've worked here. It's 100 percent difference between the two societies.

It's a shame that Colmes doesn't know the Brotherhood's history. And there is no mention by ElBaradei of the MB's strong support for Hamas and Hezb'allah. The latter group is an Iranian proxy so he is whistling past the graveyard if he thinks (more likely he knows but is downplaying the danger) that the Brotherhood wouldn't try to initiate some kind of theocracy in Egypt.

Many liberals also take the Iranians at their word when they swear they aren't building a bomb. What is it about the left that causes them to believe our adversaries, but disbelieve our friends?

Mark Roth adds:

It is most interesting to note the influence of the Moslem Brotherhood and its proposed "partner" in the current Egyptian insurrection/rebellion/revolution.  The Brotherhood's choice of a leader is Mohammed El Baradei, whose last position was a long-running head of the United Nations IAEA, the supposed UN nuclear watchdog. 

For those astute enough to follow the arguments against el Baradei during his UN tenure, it was clear that, at least with respect to Iran, el Baradei was the fox in the henhouse.  He served as chief of the IAEA from 1997 to 2009, during which time he repeatedly asserted that Iran was further from nuclear success than was actually the case.  In this he promoted and protected Iranian nuclear development.

For the conspiratorially minded it is fuel on the fire that el Baradei was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2005.  And that "Peace Prize" was for--increasing the risk of nuclear war?  The very thing el Baradei was charged with preventing.  Interesting.

And now, el Baradei is at the forefront of the "revolution" in Egypt. Coincidence?

It cannot be said that the UN was completely unaware of el Baradei's actions or of the inevitable and natural consequences of those actions, for, in truth and in fact, el Baradei was the UN agent in charge of the nuclear issue.  And now, it stands revealed through the force of events, the extent of UN complicity in this entire affair and of the impact on the current Islamic uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt as well as on the current unrest in Jordan.

It should be abundantly clear at last that the UN is dominated by a coalition of leftists and Arabists actively working to damage what used to be known as "the free world."  Among other things evident from this state of affairs, it is also clear that the US should and, in fact, must, terminate its support of the UN.
This is truly bizarre. Liberal commentator Alan Colmes triumphantly posts a quote from ElBaradei that "proves" us wingnuts are not reality based by worrying about a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood:

Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading voice of Egypt's opposition, told Fareed Zakaria on CNN that the American conservative fear put forth by people like John Bolton and Thaddeus McCotter that the Muslim Brotherhood will step in and take over Egypt if Hosni Mubarak falls is a myth without "one iota of reality."

And Colmes believes him? Takes him at his word? Ha'aretz:

Gamal Nasser, a spokesman for the Brotherhood, told DPA that his group was in talks with Mohammed ElBaradei - the former UN nuclear watchdog chief - to form a national unity government without the National Democratic Party of Mubarak.
The group is also demanding an end to the draconian Emergency Laws, which grant police wide-ranging powers The laws have been used often to arrest and harass the Islamist group.

Nasser said his group would not accept any new government with Mubarak. On Saturday the Brotherhood called on President Mubarak to relinquish power in a peaceful manner following the resignation of the Egyptian cabinet. 

What did Colmes expect him to say? He's coordinating with the Muslim Brotherhood to lead a new government.  Of course he's going to downplay the MB's past and their radical, anti-Semitic policies that, if implemented, would destroy the Camp David Accords and threaten the peace of the region.

ElBaradei told CNN host Fareed Zakaria that the MB is just a bunch of puppy dogs, wouldn't harm a fly:

ELBARADEI: I'm quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mabarak regime, that it's either us - the ruthless dictators - or a Muslim al-Qaeda type. The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because of liberal parties have been a struggle for thirty years. They are in favor of a secular state. they are of -they are in favor of an institution that have bread lines, they are in favor that every Egyptian have the same rights, that the state is in no way a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are as much a part of society as the markets that started here. I think this is a myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime and has no iota of reality. You know Fareed, I worked with Iranians, I've worked here. It's 100 percent difference between the two societies.

It's a shame that Colmes doesn't know the Brotherhood's history. And there is no mention by ElBaradei of the MB's strong support for Hamas and Hezb'allah. The latter group is an Iranian proxy so he is whistling past the graveyard if he thinks (more likely he knows but is downplaying the danger) that the Brotherhood wouldn't try to initiate some kind of theocracy in Egypt.

Many liberals also take the Iranians at their word when they swear they aren't building a bomb. What is it about the left that causes them to believe our adversaries, but disbelieve our friends?

Mark Roth adds:

It is most interesting to note the influence of the Moslem Brotherhood and its proposed "partner" in the current Egyptian insurrection/rebellion/revolution.  The Brotherhood's choice of a leader is Mohammed El Baradei, whose last position was a long-running head of the United Nations IAEA, the supposed UN nuclear watchdog. 

For those astute enough to follow the arguments against el Baradei during his UN tenure, it was clear that, at least with respect to Iran, el Baradei was the fox in the henhouse.  He served as chief of the IAEA from 1997 to 2009, during which time he repeatedly asserted that Iran was further from nuclear success than was actually the case.  In this he promoted and protected Iranian nuclear development.

For the conspiratorially minded it is fuel on the fire that el Baradei was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2005.  And that "Peace Prize" was for--increasing the risk of nuclear war?  The very thing el Baradei was charged with preventing.  Interesting.

And now, el Baradei is at the forefront of the "revolution" in Egypt. Coincidence?

It cannot be said that the UN was completely unaware of el Baradei's actions or of the inevitable and natural consequences of those actions, for, in truth and in fact, el Baradei was the UN agent in charge of the nuclear issue.  And now, it stands revealed through the force of events, the extent of UN complicity in this entire affair and of the impact on the current Islamic uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt as well as on the current unrest in Jordan.

It should be abundantly clear at last that the UN is dominated by a coalition of leftists and Arabists actively working to damage what used to be known as "the free world."  Among other things evident from this state of affairs, it is also clear that the US should and, in fact, must, terminate its support of the UN.