Muslim Brotherhood Secular? There’s Willful Blindness, and Then There’s Willful Stupidity

James Clapper, the head of intelligence for the United States of America, has explained to Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular.” It further has “eschewed violence,” decries al-Qaeda as a “perversion of Islam,” and really just wants “social ends” and “a betterment of the political order in Egypt.”

I kid you not.

This is the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto brays that the Koran is its law and jihad is its way. The MB whose Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, was created for the specific purpose of destroying Israel — the goal its charter says is a religious obligation.

It is the organization dedicated to the establishment of Islamicized societies and, ultimately, a global caliphate.
It is an organization whose leadership says al-Qaeda’s emir, Osama bin Laden, is an honorable jihad warrior who was “close to Allah on high” in “resisting the occupation.” The same leader who insists that “the history of freedom is written not in ink [i.e., constitutions] but in blood [i.e., jihad].”

If this is what $40 billion–plus buys you, maybe Representative Ryan can make up the rest of that $100 billion by eliminating the intelligence community.

Re: Re: Willful Blindness, Etc.

February 10, 2011 4:22 P.M.

By Cliff May  

James Clapper is the director of national intelligence, so he must know what he’s talking about.

I mean, who are you going to believe? DNI Clapper or the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Supreme Guide,” Muhammad Badi, who said it was his hope and plan to raise “a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life”? Kamal al-Halbavi, a senior member of the Brotherhood, was probably just kidding around when he told the BBC the other day that he hoped Egypt soon would have a government “like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad.” (These guys just have a wicked sense of humor.) I have more on this in my NRO piece today.
Also, it’s useful to remember how, back in 1979, the intel community, the diplomatic corps, and the major media were absolutely spot on about the revolution in Iran. For example:
● President Carter’s U.N. ambassador, Andrew Young, called Khomeini “some kind of saint.”
● William Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador in Tehran, compared Khomeini to Gandhi.
● A State Department spokesman worried about the possibility of a military coup, saying that would be “most dangerous for U.S. interests. It would blow away the moderates and invite the majority to unite behind a radical faction.”
● On Feb. 12, 1979, Time magazine reported

. . . a sense of controlled optimism in Iran. . . . Iranians will surely insist that the revolution live up to its democratic aims. . . . Those who know [Khomeini] expect that eventually he will settle in the Shi’ite holy city of Qum and resume a life of teaching and prayer. It seems improbable that he would try to become a kind of Archbishop Makarios of Iran, directly holding the reins of power. Khomeini believes that Iran should become a parliamentary democracy, with several political parties.

● A New York Times editorial reassured readers that “moderate, progressive individuals” were advising Khomeini. The Times predicted the Ayatollah would provide “a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”
More in the piece I wrote for NRO a year ago.