Egypt's President Morsi to Elect a Christian and a Woman as Vice Presidents

Critics are questioning if this vow by Morsi will come to fruition, or if it is an empty promise meant to temporarily placate concerns that he is a traditionally orthodox Muslim with only Muslim needs in mind.

Morsi made the claim this past Monday when his representatives told various international media outlets of his plan to unify Egyptians of different backgrounds under his one government.

"And it's not just a vice president who will represent a certain agenda and sect, but a vice president who is powerful and empowered and will be taking care of critical advising within the presidential Cabinet," Ahmed Deif, Morsi's topic advisor, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

In addition, Deif promised to elect a Christian to the vice presidential platform as well, telling CNN Monday that Egypt "definitely" will not be an "Islamic Republic."

Additionally, Morsi told CNN a few weeks before the election: "The role of women in Egyptian society is clear," although, as CNN points out, he was initially for banning women from the presidential race.

"Women's rights are equal to men. Women have complete rights, just like men. There shouldn't be any kind of distinction between Egyptians except that ... based on the constitution and the law," he added.

Critics have been concerned that Morsi, who is himself a practicing Muslim, will lead a regime similar to that of the interim military council, whose predominate conservative Muslim influence caused Christians to flee the countries in by the thousands.

Although it is still undetermined whether Morsi will actually fulfill these promises, the president has said he will begin making appointments once the members of his cabinet have been selected, once again showing that he does not plan to rule the country in a dictator-like fashion.

Egypt is run by the various successors to Nasserites, and all of them were Islamicists as well as being socialists. Nasser’s profile, fame, and popularity kept rising right up until he started the Six Day War and 75,000 Egyptian soldiers died, most of them of thirst as they fled across the Sinai. The Egyptian people (and Nasser himself) weren’t aware of how bad the beating was until the survivors started swimming across the Suez Canal to get back home. Nasser’s health cracked, and he basically never recovered.

Sadat was next, and skillfully guided Egypt’s transition away from Soviet-style socialism into a system of patronage more in tune with Muzzie populations everywhere, but particularly in the Arab world. His fellow Nasserites didn’t like that, so Sadat took the risk of letting the jihadists out of prison in order to balance the political situation. And he continued his path of building a peaceful Egypt by concluding the treaty with Israel. Then the jihadists shot him.

Mubarak’s reign was longer than Nasser’s and Sadat’s, and he built the system of patronage and Sadat’s peace treaty into a model. There are more Egyptians now than there have ever been, and economically the country is in the best shape it’s ever been in. Living conditions for most people have been improving, and even the poorest in Egypt are able to live okay and earn an income. He failed to rein in the Islamofascists to the needed extent, earning himself a reputation for brutality and human rights violations never seen since our troops made Iraqi thugs wear underwear on their heads. Egyptian police had managed to keep order in a country with open calls for jihad and shariah “law”, and they only had to arrest fascists and give them beatings.

This new joker may not be in power (or alive) very long. His only shot is to try to pry the hands of the old guard from ownership of most industry in Egypt. He’ll probably make his first overseas trip to Nicaragua and/or Venezuela, rather than Iran, although I’m sure Iran will be on his itinerary during his first or second year. He has to calm things down, and the first step is this announcement about his diversity policy. :’)

"...The Iranians did the same thing, brought some moderates into the government early on, then bumped them off down the road..."

To liberals, there is no such thing as history. It has to be shaped, formed and dispensed to suit their current needs. They bank on the fact that there are a lot of people who can remember one thing, and one thing only about 1979 and Iran: That there were hostages. That's it, and that is if they even know. You would be surprised to see how absolutely little some people know about recent history.

Many of us just happened to be alive back then, and can remember what actually happened.

People like us are regarded as dangerous by liberals.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

BAIT SHIRT CRAZY!