Barry Rubin noticed that the Obama administration is trying to find subtle differences between bad Islamists and good Islamists:
As the Arab revolutions unfold, the White House is studying various Islamist movements, identifying ideological differences for clues to how they might govern in the short and long term.
The White House's internal assessment, dated Feb. 16, looked at the Muslim Brotherhood's and al-Qaeda's views on global jihad, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United States, Islam in politics, democracy and nationalism, among others.
The report draws sharp distinctions between the ambitions of the two groups, suggesting that the Brotherhood's mix of Islam and nationalism make it a far different organization than al-Qaeda, which sees national boundaries as obstacles to restoring the Islamic caliphate.
The study also concludes that the Brotherhood criticizes the United States largely for what it perceives as America's hypocritical stance toward democracy - promoting it rhetorically but supporting leaders such as Mubarak.
"If our policy can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, we won't be able to adapt to this change," the senior administration official said. "We're also not going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear."
On February 25th, two competing groups protested outside the Libyan embassy in London, calling for Gaddafi to resign.
The better-organized and louder group wanted Libya to become an Islamist state.
Alongside demonstrators present at previous protests were Islamists chanting slogans such as: "Gaddafi burn in hell!" "Obama Burn in hell" and "Sharia Law is the only choice."Since this group is advocating an Islamist, Sharia-based Libya,they must be the good "nationalist" Islamists.
Tensions ran high between the two sides, with one claiming to speak for all Libyans and the other proclaiming violent Jihad, narrow Sharia Law or nothing.