No, I am not a neo-conservative US-citizen who wishes to spread imperialistically spread western democratic values to the world at large and Arab world in particular. I read a plethora of news sources, from Al-Jazeera (albeit rarely) and Majalla (pretty frequently, very objective source) and The New Republic (well-known liberal newspaper, minus the democratic but FP neo-con editor Peretz) to the Economist and Financial Times to the Jerusalem Post and the Wall Street Journal. My grades, degree and interest in FP would vindicate any accusation that I am "brainwashed."

But to the point:

Please note that I made absolutely zero reference to ElBaredi's domestic policies vis-a-vis Egypt. Hosni Mubarak is an oppressive monarch who should be replaced by a much more populist, pro-democratic leader for such a powerful Arab state. I have my doubts that this is possible, but then again, whoever thought Sadat would sign the Camp David Accords in 1978. I do not know ElBaredi's policies domestically, but would presume it would by default a better leader than Mubarak.
(Complete transparency: I know little of Egyptian internal affairs, aside from the fact that Mubarak's son is running.)

THAT being said, he has done a pitiful job constraining rogue states like North Korea and Iran from increasingly and insidiously weaponizing nuclear warheads. Whether they want them from geopolitical hegemony, deterrence, or to blow up Israel is immaterial to the discussion. The fact is, all 3 of those options are anathema to the interests of both Western and Moderate Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, EGYPT, Jordan etc.) and therefore should have been subdued or at least engaged honestly and credibly. ElBaredi, for all intents and purposes, seems to have allowed a lot of awful things occur on his watch that could have been altered, had he been a more successful Secretary-General.

My POINT is this: is ElBaredi who you really want running Egypt? Based on his track record, who is a technocratic hack with a lack of diplomatic skills or charisma. Is he truly who you want, or trust, to reform your country? I think not.

Oh yeah, and did you see that pic where he shakes hands with Achmadenijad? I mean come on, that's an exhibition of an honest broker if i've ever seen one, NOTTTT.

I wrote my rebuttal quickly, and in the process made a couple typos (including ElBaredi instead of ElBaredei.) It was rushed and written as I was half-listening to a seminar.

I wish the best for the Egyptian people and yourself. Is ElBaredei the best man for the job? It is not as if he preserved some fragile status-quo world order. Under his watch, and amidst copious international developments that function far beyond his purview or control, North Korea and Iran have been allowed to create illegal WMD programs.

The only actual achievement ElBaredei achieved was the fact that a nuclear weapon wasn't detonated on his watch. Oh wait, there was, in North Korea!

If you have substantiated reasoning for believing that ElBaredei is in fact the most capable man for the job, than power to him and ESPECIALLY the Egyptian people. BUT...if his job as Sec-General of the IAEA is any indication, transparency isn't exactly his thing.

REMEMBER: ElBaredei waited his entire tenure to censure Iran; despite spending years secretly acknowledging a burgeoning Iranian nuke program, and publicly decrying and lying about the reality in public.

EXHIBIT A: in this article, he announces the Pyrrhic "vindication" of his announcement that Iran ceased its weapons program in 2003 by announced the 2007 US NIE estimate that Iran did indeed halt its production in that year.
HOWEVER: the results of that study have been found PUBLICLY to be utterly ``````flawed and deceptive. Therefore, he lied in this very interview.

Great start for a political career: waxing poetically about non-achievements and concomitantly showing his duplicity.

Well, I was not trying to make doubts about what kind or quality of your media sources my complain is about listening to the other side for instace US is supporing Israel all over its history ... is that means that Israel is the ABSOLUTE right??
US took the decision of invading Iraq and to ignore the IAEA report which is not trustfull as your government said!!! have your government started invistigating this issue ie how many innocent people where killed their according to this decision which was supported by your leaders and media. furthermore, Do you really considering Afghanistan war to spread justice?? I'm not going to say that Bin Laden is staying in one of your states now but really I'd like to know is the most intelligent agency CIA can not find any sign for him for almost 10 years?!!!!

The IAEA wrok and investigation reports should be based on facts not opinions.
I know that the USA government is considering threaten its people in order to keep the war machine running all the time that not for loving the war as it is for keeping one power pole.

Regarding what you named the moderate arab countries... can you please mention the extreme arab countries. thats one of your media LIES.
We are 21 arab country and you mentioned 3 countries as the moderate countries ... is that means that we have 18 extreme arab countries.

Your media is associating the word MUSLIM with the word TERRORIST all the time ... Is that means that this world 6 billion inhabitants has 1.5 billion out of them are terrorists, the muslims are one quarter of the world population

Egypt is our country and we'll make the changes needed, but first USA have to stop supporting this dectatorship (you can read about the historical allies Egypt and USA).

If you really want to know in three minutes how this relationship is supported, search on youtube about "Egyptian USA Relation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVKCtWwH3z8

Please SCOTTGOOSE don't misinterpetate my words here, I'm complaining about your foriegn policy ie your government not about the USA people but in the same time you all don't have to receive what the media is telling you.

FIRST: STOP YOUR GOVERNMENT WARS
SECOND: STOP SUPPORING DICTATORSHIPS

Where are you getting your info on Iran and N. Korean "WMD" programs? Because they appear to have the same hysterical tone being disseminated by AIPAC that makes it's way into right-wing papers. LOL... I bet you thought listing the WSJ as evidence of your broad choice in news orgs. was a good thing , huh? Well....for your information, the WSJ has long since descended into little more than another Scaife, Ailes, Murdoch, Moon-led assault on your reality in an attempt to continue where PNAC/ Rumsfeld failed.

Conservatives.... The world has been witness to the insane ugliness behind what was once a reputable idealogical stance. I'm speaking of Burkean conservatism only of course. What is now taking place under the auspices of "conservatism" is in fact a manifestation of a sociological phenomenon known to historians, scientists (as well as DHS counter-terrorism experts) as the "RWA-SDO embrace". FYI, its a mutual pathology between conservative leaders and followers wherein each ones pathos can be acted out by the other, allowing them to do far more damage than they could ever do on their own.
And now that a black man with ties to Muslim family members has become the President of a nation the Christian right SDOs long ago promised to their RWA followers as a gift to them from Jesus (who was making up for having earlier given Israel to Jews..fairs fair I suppose). But this intrusion of a black man as President into their prefabricated world has put them over the edge. Their scarred minds cannot support this possibility as being true, thus the numerous ways of disqualifying him from the position. Denial and projection deluxe! The chances for another terror attack from US RWingers is certain as long as he's President.

Why? Because the educated have long known that the conservative right-wing is the source from which someone willing to use violence to gain a political objective is most likely to arise (OBL, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Pinochet etc. are all RW conservatives). However, those who read rags like the JPost, WSJ would never know because for the editors and owners of such, painting an enemy for you in a way that will inspire hatred and fear of someone you really know nothing about... is more apt to bring about their own political and military objectives as right-wing players among the world's wealthiest elite.

Dont believe what I say about DHS and criminologists? Here's links to papers from both:"It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, "Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" (p. 38). http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725C.htmhttp://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

Why? Because Bolton attacked it for its lack of material he could use to continue his constant haranguing of anything not under US or Israeli control? Have you not yet learned that the PNAC roster was composed largely of psychopaths and Little Napoleons? I would think that first paragraph where he tries to insinuate through clever language use (Hasbara training no doubt!) that because the report is based on intel that is still classified that this somehow means the report must then be no good. Of course such an assertion is absolutely ridiculous. No NIE is based on intel that comes only from declassified sources...and thank god for that! It would have to really bad intel to be outed so casually, right? And intel of such low classification is not what the NIE is designed for anyhow...quite the opposite in fact.

No. Bolton just wanted to use language that appears to say something derisive about it, figuring the average RWA is so gullible toward their leaders that they'll brush by, accepting his frame without thinking about whether it makes any real sense.
That's a common tactic of propagandists. Such people never learned the basic lesson in life that says how any point so lacking in credible arguments that one must engage in lies to defend it....is surely something not worth defending in the first place. And that this is the best signal they can hope to get telling them they are currently on the wrong side of history and its time to change sides.

Come on over!

correction: Poverty*

I, as a US citizen who disagreed with the idea of invading Iraq, period. Being that we are at point B anyway, I ipso facto accept the reality that the US cannot run away with their tails between their legs. Terrible things occurred and many innocents died, which is a horrible and I am disgraced that the nation that I hold dear left such collateral damage in the wage of an ill-fated attempt to de-throne Saddam and sack Baghdad.

I ignored the whole Iraq scenario, as well as the Egyptian internal politics angle, because they were not germane to my point.

All I care about is a stable Arab world with a democratically inclined leader to replace Mubarak. If ElBaredei is in fact this man (which his accolades show he can be), that you have my best wishes. Notice how my critiques were pointed and overtly aimed at his record at the IAEA and the fact that he waited until he left his final term to speak truthfully about Iran's program.

While were on the topic, however:
1) We all know that the Iraqi invasion was a myopic, dangerous and ill-advised deflection maneuver to ignore the burgeoning WMD programs that actually existed in Iran and North Korea -- I'm no diplomat, and have no political capital at stake to admit such reality
2) Sure, American FP post WW-2 is chock-full of schizophrenic decisions, be it a proxy war, shady covert op's, even coup's of foreign government. During the Iran-Iraq war, the US was just playing both sides, hoping to fan the flames eastward and away from the US. Yes, in hindsight, we never should have supported a theocratic mullocracy in Iran, but thats that the US does; feign protection of allies while really just showering them with weapons to keep the war drums rolling. Further, Bush Sr. Administrations WAS aware that Saddam's regime was using horrible biological weapons on its citizens, and still dealt with them. The US is no angel, but for a contemporaneous hegemonic power, they play the part quite well, and I would contend, BETTER than any other options? You think another world power, like China, would have fared any better? They would do the EXACT same thing they are doing now with Iran: providing resources and technical know-how to Iran while concomitantly feigning an alliance with the P5+1 to save face.

3) As far as foreign aid is concerned, its clear you have not taken even a 300-level undergrad course in Int;l Political Economy, for the imperialistic nonsense your spouting is unconscionable. Levels of foreign direct investment, portfolio/equity investments, etc. have been roughly similar to, for example, SE Asia and Latin America during the 70's and 80's. However, the former made do with similar amounts of money, while the latter floundered under (comparatively) closed economies, with minimal rule of law or sound financial institutions. Foreign investments in general may prop up some bad regimes, but good can and has come from it; context and domestic regimes are what the issue is. That being said, it is a disingenuous attempt to blame the world powers for the troubles of countries that they flooded money into and didn;t have the capacity or will to convert the fungible commodity into progress. (Read Chp. 8 of Grieco and Ikenberry's "Developing Nations and the World Economy" in State Power and World Markets, if you'd like to learn something and not be brainwashed against the west. Provides empirical evidence for the help and hindrances intrinsic to FDI)

****** The point is, best wishes to all you Egyptians who strive for rule of law and a sound democracy that can provide for its citizens. Maybe ElBaredei is the man for the job, but I am not sold just yet. Fortunately for you, I don't have a vote in Egypt, and it seems that neither do you, so lets just stick to the point and leave the digressions for a philosophy seminar.

Karen:

I did not mean to belittle you, on my point regarding foreign investments around the world. The fact of the matter is, MNC's invest in countries for myriad reasons that often seem like nefarious attempts to overpower local gov;ts and take advantage of cheap labor, no infrastructure to deal with bad working conditions etc. However, studies have shown that while the IMF has a poor track record in picking countries capable of viably utilizing its aid, other foreign aid has been a necessary condition, amongst others, in building countries and turning them into budding democracies. Singapore and South Korea are exhibits A and B.

Really though, do you just wish to leave countries to their own devices ENTIRELY and not get involved anywhere? This isn't 1905. We live in a globally interconnected and heavily interdependent world with increasingly diminishing borders. Meddling in others affairs, be it politically or economically, is just reality. Every country with any clout does so, and for very different reasons. Google this scholarly article for some track records of major countries FDI attempts called "Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle: A comparison of American, Japanese, French and Swedish Aid Flows" by Shraeder et. al. ---- Every country helps other countries out, for varying reasons that often conflict with their so-called humanitarian reasons, and there are detrimental impacts (US supports democratic countries just cause they are non-socialist, Swedes prefer socialist countries by 4-1, and France provides weapons to "Francophile" NW African nations in the midst of civil wars, for some highlights).

Lets be frank: everyone gets involved in everyone else's affairs, and its just a way of life. Better embrace it, because according to your logic, FDI is so horrendous by nature that countries should be allowed to implode on their own. That is not a world I want any part of.