Sisi’s call for intervention was taken to mean either Morsi should resign or call for new elections.
An aide to Morsi said, “Obviously we feel this is a military coup. But the conviction within the presidency is that [the coup] won’t be able to move forward without American approval.” The implication was that the Egyptian army would not intervene without the support of the United States, since it depends on American largesse.
Early Tuesday morning, after speaking on the phone with Obama on Monday, Egypt’s embattled President Morsi ”rebuffed an army ultimatum to force a resolution to Egypt’s political crisis,” and said he would “pursue his own plans for national reconciliation.”
The Islamist leader described as potentially confusing Monday’s 48-hour deadline set by the head of the armed forces for him to agree on a common platform with liberal rivals who have drawn millions into the streets demanding Mursi’s resignation.
Members of his Muslim Brotherhood have used the word “coup” to describe the military maneuver, which carries the threat of the generals imposing their own road map for the nation.
But in a statement issued at nearly 2 a.m., fully nine hours after General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delighted Mursi’s opponents by effectively ordering the president to heed the demands of demonstrators, the president’s office used considerably less direct language to indicate he would try to take little notice.
“The president of the republic was not consulted about the statement issued by the armed forces,” it said. “The presidency sees that some of the statements in it carry meanings that could cause confusion in the complex national environment.”
Official video was released showing Mursi meeting the uniformed Sisi. Their body language seemed awkward, although it was unclear when it was shot.
The statement from Mursi’s office continued, “The presidency confirms that it is going forward on its previously plotted path to promote comprehensive national reconciliation … regardless of any statements that deepen divisions between citizens.”
Describing civilian rule as a great gain from the revolution of 2011, Egypt’s first freely elected leader, in office for just a year, said he would not let the clock be turned back.
But in referring to his plans for reconciliation as those he had spelt out before, he was speaking of offers that have already been rejected by the opposition, leaving it improbable that such compromises would bear fruit before Sisi’s deadline.
Mursi also spoke to U.S. President Barack Obama by phone on Monday, the presidency said in a separate statement. Mursi stressed that Egypt was moving forward with a peaceful democratic transition based on the law and constitution, it said.
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to his Egyptian counterpart, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on Monday, although it was unclear what was said.
President Barack Obama has urged Mursi and his rivals to compromise. But Washington has also defended the legitimacy of Mursi’s election. It is unclear how far the Egyptian military has informed, or coordinated with, its U.S. sponsors.
NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted, (h/t WZ): POTUS will not criticize Morsi specifically, says not U.S. Position to pick Egypt’s leaders.
Charles Krauthammer, hearkening back to the 2009 Green revolution in Iran, called Obama just “a bystander” again, as millions of Egyptians take to the streets – but I’m not sure it’s correct to call him a bystander, this time. He sent 140,000 Canisters of U.S. Teargas to Egypt’s Morsi. That’s pro-active.
Obama is a bystander, again. Here are the Egyptians in the millions out on the street, trying to bring down an Islamist government, increasingly dictatorial, increasingly intolerant, arresting journalists and judges, trying to Islamicize the military and the people are saying no, and what does the president of the United States do? He takes a position of studied neutrality, says he is not supporting either side. And yet, as you point out in the Mubarak revolution, he obviously strongly took the side of the people. He demanded that Mubarak had to go, he was not neutral.
This reminds me of the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 when the same thing happened. Islamists, dictatorial government, the people out in the street, and they were shouting Obama, Obama, are you with us or against us. And he took a position that was essentially supportive of the regime, and the reason was he wanted to negotiate a nuclear deal which he thought he could do and he didn’t want instability.
That was a shameful episode. But there’s also idea of national interest. Mubarak was pro-American, he was an ally of ours, he helped us in all kinds of ways. Obama worked against him. Morsi represents a movement which is essentially deeply anti-American, and deeply anti-democratic, yet he is neutral on this. This is a shocking position for a president to take.
Via Townhall, a memo surfaced, last week that has been reported on in the Arab world, not yet been acknowledged in the American MSM.
Multiple sources have confirmed this document details several confessions of the six Egyptians in Libyan custody for the 9.11.12 bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
The document details the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi as being involved with and in the funding, support, planning, and execution of the attack.
What is unique about this document is that its content wasn’t leaked to the press in some sort of salacious move. This is simply an interdepartmental memo from the Libyan National Security offices in Tripoli to the Ministry of the Interior. Written solely as a perfunctory after-action report as the results of the Libyan investigation in the events of that night.
It was prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, the Director of National Security of Libya.
In his report Sharif conveys that the Libyan investigation unearthed an Egyptian (terror) cell that had been involved in the planning and execution of the attack. Six confessions from those arrested at the scene–all of them Egyptian–and all connected to the U.S. terror watch listed group Ansar al-Sharia.
Concerning the most important claim of the Libyan memo, Raymond Ibrahim, (an American research librarian, translator, and author, whose focus is Arabic history, language, and current events) indicates that “during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members ‘confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi…’”
The investigation also seems to have unearthed a video taken the night of the attack in which members of the jihadists identify themselves as being sent personally by “Dr. Morsi.”
If in fact Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was even remotely involved, tacitly aware, or even seen giving nodding approval, why on earth did President Obama turn around and deliver 16 fighter jets and 200 tanks to the Egyptian regime roughly three months later?
Keep reading… there are a few more questions that need answers – not the least being, “Will the White House press corps do its job and press for answers on Egyptian involvement in 09.11.12?”
And can the American people handle the truth?
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!