As far as his remark goes, he is correct. The events in Egypt ended exactly as obama and his handlers wanted them to. In a few months, things are going to get a little rough on the Coptics and infidels.
Obama was hands-off in Egypt until he saw who was going to win. Insurgents in Iran have to come up with better results.
“The fact is the United States and the White House weren’t all that central to the events in Egypt,” said Brzezinski
So after Obama is blamed for the events in Egypt, Brezinski says the US was not central to events in Egypt, Does this mean the MSA will stop trying to twist events there to make him look good? If Obama was not central then he can’t take the credit for events there either. Which is it MSM?
“The fact is the United States and the White House weren’t all that central to the events in Egypt,” said Brzezinski
So after Obama is blamed for the events in Egypt, Brezinski says the US was not central to events in Egypt, Does this mean the MSM will stop trying to twist events there to make him look good? If Obama was not central then he can’t take the credit for events there either. Which is it MSM?
Brzezinski knows a little about blowing a Middle East crisis....
Yeah, a real winner that Zbigniew is. And, he was about the best of the entire Carter Administration. Is there any wonder Jimmuh got canned after one term?
Just according to (liberal-friendly) Wiki, Zbigniew’s responsible for:
“...the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China (and the severing of ties with the Republic of China), the signing of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), the brokering of the Camp David Accords, the transition of Iran from an important US client state to an anti-Western Islamic Republic, encouraging dissidents in Eastern Europe and emphasizing certain human rights in order to undermine the influence of the Soviet Union,[1] the financing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet deployment of forces there[2] (allegedly either to help deter a Russian invasion, or to deliberately increase the chance of such an intervention occurring—or for both contradictory reasons simultaneously being embraced by separate US officials[3]) and the arming of these rebels to counter the Soviet invasion, and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties relinquishing overt US control of the Panama Canal after 1999.”