Political Meltdown in Egypt...

DougK for SecState! (based on a fraction of the intel and an apparent hubris as to things of complexity). You could fuck up most excellently, man. Member of the Pantheon and all.

 

OK, THAT made me laugh out loud!

 

I thought this was most excellent....

 

Not saying it's right or wrong, but perhaps BamaJelly was just getting out in public with support for the most likely eventual outcome in both cases.

It wasn't very likely that Ackmydinnersbad was going to be ousted... so Bammer didn't come out publicly calling for his resignation and then look weak since that didn't happen.

It was pretty clear from the get-go that Mubarak was gonna get kicked out on his keister. Again, Bammer just got out publicly beforehand calling for his resignation, then he looks like the Annointed One that he is when that's the eventual outcome.



and shit.

 

I can see not wanting to not look like you picked the losing side. However, as President, he is supposed to chose the side of freedom and democracy. He is also supposed to show support for our allies to ensure a strong relationship and stability. To me, even though the probability of Ahmad and the Iranian Mulahs losing control may not have been high the President should have supported the cry for freedom and democracy. Especially in the wake of the Iranian government using force and violence to quell the large numbers of protestors.

Egypt is a bit different because of the strategic alliences in place in that region. I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't have supported the cry for freedom there, in fact he should have supported it provdided it is a legitmate cry for freedom. He couldn't throw Mubarak under the bus fast enough when he should have been negotiating behind the scenes.

Take into consideration also that Iran had a public leader established (granted he was a shady), but in Egypt there was no leader and no agenda when Obama threw Mubarak under the bus. He very well could have been supporting the start of WWIII there by not knowing who will take charge. I think he really got lucky with the Egyptian military taking charge and preventing a more radical group from taking control.

Now there is the possibility of Iranian protests and the likelyhood of violence to prevent protests. Will our President support the cry for freedom or will he support the suppression of democracy? I've always felt that the President should support democracy, even if it may not happen during his presidency.

 

And the whole behind the scenes discussions are thrown out the window when the President goes public and says, "leave now". Not much wiggle room there. I also feel it was very premature when there wasn't a defined leader or agenda established for who would take power afterwards.

 

??? Have you been doing any research on who's been running the show in Egypt? The military...that's how Air Chief Marshall Mubarek (good performance rating in the 1973 war with Israel) came to be the fearless leader (after the assassination of Sadat). All the top dogs are connected to the military. so in essence, it is the military which continues to be in command of Egypt. We'll see about the 'democratic' elections promised in the future.

Nothing is 'thrown out the window' when the President makes a public statement; any discrepancy between that public statement, and what is privately agreed upon, is known to the parties involved beforehand. I wish I had ten dollars for every publicly misleading statement by a politician...I'd be so rich I'd be a politican myself!

The U.S. doesn't control the world, contrary to a popular myth, and in fact is officially quite reactive to situations. This is one of those situations, and, after a decent review of Egypt's contemporary history, it would be most difficult to reliably predict who or what would be in political power from one day to the next, depending upon which assassination attempt was successful.

 

Have you ever felt that in some cases, his intervention could make things worse for the insurgents? Such as galvanizing the Iranian gov't retort by the ever present anti-US sentiments....

 

Well, apparently they must be operating on feelings, Valentine's day and all.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.158cf120b22d1fab72b87226699036ea.881

 

Yes, it could. However a larger group of people who were begging for the worlds support (and the United States support) last year in Iran would probably have been more galvanized to succeed.

 

To succeed in doing what, exactly, and how (by what means)?

 

Nothing.....The odds are against them succeeding

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ts-rally-in-tehran-mousavi-under-house-arrest

 

US CBS reporter attacked and sexually abused in Tahrir Square during celebrations...by the peaceful protesters no doubt...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-0216-lara-logan-20110216,0,7874593.story

 

I find it funny that now liberals want to throw out this evil middle east dictator. Um....weren't they wanting to keep Saddam Hussein (nerve gas, rape rooms, etc.) in power because he was 5 long years away from getting a nuke? Damn.

 

No.

You're just being delusional again.





Are you saying conservatives wanted to keep Hosni in power?

 

Don't pick on Jay. He's still getting over the WMD thing.

 

I'm just waiting for Obama to come out with the laundry list of mid-east leaders that must leave now because of protests.

 

Right. Because Saddam Hussein never had WMD, or the capability to produce them, or used them on Iran or the Kurds, or stalled attempts by UN weapons Inspectors. Never mind the reports by the British intelligence. Yeah, I guess I'm still not over people burying their heads in the sand. Poor, poor, Saddam.

BTW, how many people has Mubarak gassed?

 

This one?...