Yousseff Ibrahim on today’s ‘useful idiots’ whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood’s attempted ‘move’ toward moderation.

On May 2, the Wall Street Journal glossed over Prime Minister Erdogan’s program of Islamizing Turkey. The editorial page of America’s weightiest conservative newspaper instead criticized Mr. Erdogan’s secular opponents and warned the deeply secular army against considering a coup.

In an April 29 New York Times article, James Traub wrote as though there was no question mark in the “Islamic Democrats?” headline that ran over his embarrassingly obsequious piece, which sang the praises of a reborn democratic Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The current issue of Foreign Affairs carries a propaganda piece by Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” that is so lacking in inquisitiveness it is being used as a calling card by the Brotherhood’s Politburo. Even the enormously level-headed Economist has argued that maintaining “democracy is more important” for Turkey than the fundamentalist threat, “even if it means enduring a bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly Islamist government.”

“Mildly Islamist” is as oxymoronic as “chilly fire.”

It continues to amaze me why people are buying into the Muslim Brotherhood turning away from violence and towards peaceful change.  We’ve heard this all before from the Brotherhood, and they’ve always had a covert military wing to carry out their wishes.

Flashback to the aftermath of the Israel-Hezbollah War: The Muslim Brotherhood was alleged to have sent jihadis to Lebanon to fight against Israel.  The allegations were loose based upon no concrete evidence, but then there comes a Muslim Brotherhood statement which stated they did not send any “militants” to Lebanon.  What “militants” does the group, who once again claims to be peaceful yet has spawned the world’s most dangerous radical Islamic groups since its inception in 1928, have?  If it did not have a military wing, why would it deny it sent any “militants” into Lebanon?