Just finished watching the Super Bowl softball O'reilly interview, and the Obamunist would NOT condemn Muslim Brotherhood. No surprise there, of course. Like the Shah (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi), Mubarak is a moderate dictator, which is exactly what the Middle East needs to keep the Muslim populace in control.
For example, didn't the Iranian populace scream for freedom and democracy in 1979? Yet they allowed the hardline (Sharia) mullahs to steal control like dictators from the democratic process. As it has been stated many times, the Muslim world will NEVER adopt freedom and democracy; a moderate dictator who is friendly to the Western world is the best we can ever hope for.
You open up a good question: Why does the Muslim religion have a cultural antagonism to Capitalism and Democracy?
I have my own theories, but here is one observation I will make now: This antipathy to Capitalism and Democracy puts nations ruled by Muslim theocracies at a disadvantage economically. In order to reduce that disadvantage, very unsavory methods, including blackmail and terrorist activity, are employed to limit their competitors. It is the savage against the scientific/technologic world. The West moved away from this thinking when it discovered that putting men to death for promoting a heliocentric universe served no useful purpose.