Mubarak: Stay or Go

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak tells Christine Amanpour he won't leave office now.

"If I resign today, there will be chaos," he said. Asked to comment on calls for him to resign, he said: "I don't care what people say about me. Right now I care about my country."

The New York Times reports the Obama Administration is discussing proposals with Egyptian officials for Mubarak to step down now.

More marches are planned for tomorrow. Will he stay or will he go?

< 7th Detainee Dies at Guantanamo | Giving Up: Unemployment Rate Drops To 9% Despite Anemic Job Growth, 36k Jobs Gained In January >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He is there now and there is chaos (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    The chaos is there because he is there, if he leaves Egypt can get beyond the chaos.  If he stays it cannot and there is no end in sight.

    Like the song says... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:18:28 AM EST
    "If I go there will be trouble, and if I stay there will be double."

    Chaos (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    The chaos was there because Mubarak dispatched his usual thugs, surprising exactly no one - least of all the Egyptian people, who have seen this time and time again - and his hired hands proceeded to do much more than merely cause "chaos."  

    Mubarak caused the chaos, did a pitiful "Woe is me, this job is soooo hard I don't want it anymore!" routine with Christiane Amanpour, and then said he had to stay in power to quell the unrest.  You know, because that's easier than calling off his goons, apparently.


    exactly my thought (none / 0) (#2)
    by sj on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:45:17 PM EST
    no chaos (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:55:22 AM EST

    Yes but his concern isn't really (none / 0) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    chaos.  He entirely focused on holding his power.

    If he were more crafty than egotistical, he'd leave after having installed a puppet in his place, but he's clearly more egotistical.


    Did you see that the Mubarak family is (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    estimated to be worth 40 to 70 billion dollars in mostly funds secreted away into accounts outside the country?  His luggage won't even be that heavy compared to other hightailing it dictators.

    The bankster connection (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    Gamal Mubarak is a former Bank of America executive (in London, an investment banker, and a part of the global finacial elite. Davos-Dubai-London-New York is the world that he is comfortable in.

    Capitalism is phucking corrupt anymore (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    I had not heard that. (none / 0) (#156)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    That's pretty incredible.  Especially considering the fact that the US only gives all of Egypt $1.3 billion annually.  That makes us minor players compared to what he could theoretically buy - at least in the short term.

    if he is not careful (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    he might find whatever assets that are local frozen and many of his henchmen have.  

    It was printed that they believe (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    most of the accounts are in the U.K. and Switzerland.

    not at all surprised (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    but they still might be frozen I think

    I think a little freezing is called for (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    In the name of and for the care and feeding of the children of Egypt.

    Oddly enough... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    the UK funds are probably safer than the Swiss funds...the opposite of traditional conventional wisdom.

    The Swiss are no longer a lock to keep your dirty money secrets, but the Brits will take care of a US/UK dual asset, to be sure, after 30 years of loyal service.


    And you heard Tony (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    talking about the poor poor Hosingme and all that Hosingme has been through.  I've tuned into Fox now, and past Amb Edward Walker is on.  Is that a rug?  I could tell that Einstein's wasn't a rug but I'm not sure about the thing on Walker's nugget.

    I don't think the protestors will settle (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:45:42 PM EST
    for Mubarak resigning but being replaced by Suliemann, as Obama admins. is proposing.

    They're hoping to ride it out (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sj on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:58:14 PM EST
    and return to the basic status quo. We've heard about Mubarak's provocations, but they have to be thinking that people will get tired and hungry and thirsty and will eventually trickle away.  He has too much pride and arrogance to think otherwise; after all, he's been top of the heap for 30 years.  I suspect that the prospect of being pushed out by inconsequential riff-raff is unthinkable to him.

    I am kind of wondering about the "fishes and loaves" thing here and how everyone is getting nourished.

    So much admiration I have, and compassion for what they have suffered that brought them to this.


    Sulieman has already said a few things (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:55:24 PM EST
    indicating he isn't a big supporter of a free press.  Makes it difficult to imagine that he is a big supporter of Egyptian Democracy :)

    I vew Sulieman as Egypt's (none / 0) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    meaner, darker, less controlled Dick Cheney. Again, the military stands between Sulieman and the people. Sulieman may have a military rank, but he's secret police.
    his installation would not be regime change, just a face of regime change.

    it has also (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:57:40 AM EST
    been made clear that a wide range of opposition groups have to be included in the transition process.  he would be the caretaker and gone in the fall.

    it could work.   they want Mubarak to leave.  if the US can arrange that they could accept the VP temporarily.  why? because is was also stated that the US knows he has the support of the army.  they will decide ulitmately.


    Could well be (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:14:17 AM EST
    Suleiman may have to be temporarily accepted in order to placate concerns from the Egyptian Army, but it has to be made clear to the people that this is truly temporary and that overseen and monitored elections will soon be held, not in Sept.

    I would be very surprised (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:22:09 AM EST
    if the people organizing this deal dont understand that.

    Suleiman as temporary/interim (none / 0) (#130)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    leader (perhaps not even taking the name of president) has been my thinking for a while, and I think that it is still a viable option.  The conditions need to include Suleiman's pledge that he will not be a candidate for president (he is 71 years old), elections will be moved to July from September, and Suleiman will preside over a new and diverse interim governing board that crafts constitutional amendments.
    An international election committee should be named as well.   Of course, the critical issue would be a grand bon voyage send off for Hosni Mubarak, with representatives from the protestors.  A barge down the Nile would be nice, with a helicopter waiting down stream for a flight to Dubai.  We will do all the palace shopping for him, in advance.

    The notion of the temporary caretaker (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    not standing for election seems like a primary point. Like you, I think the elections would be a bargaining point <in terms of earlier scheduling.>
    On the scheduling & international oversite commission, tho: (1) Al Jazeera had a commentator a short while ago indicating that the last open elections in that land of 80plus million people had not occurred since the 1940s. It still seems that shortening the schedule would be reasonable with some assistance from those conversant in such matters. (2) It may be a delicate matter in terms of what form of international involvement...for the reason that Egypt is not a protectorate or a failed state (only a failed dictator). Assistance as requested, rather than oversight as imposed might be more reflective.

    Agreed. My intention was (none / 0) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:24:22 PM EST
    that the "naming" of an international body to assist in the election would be by the Egyptian government.  And, since Suleiman, according to this scenario, would be at  the helm during the election process, such a committee would engender needed confidence.  As you say, it has been a long time between trains as far as fair elections go

    I keep wondering... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by EL seattle on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:59:12 AM EST
    ... What would have happened if in January 2001, a million people had arrived in Washington D.C. and gathered at the White House demanding that George Bush not be allowed to become a sham president whose "election" had made a mockery of democacy.  How many days would it have taken to get Bush to flee the country?  Or would ther have been violence?

    There was violence and casualties when the U.S. government moved against the Bonus Marchers in the 1930s, and there weren't nearly a million vets protesting and camping in D.C. as part of that protest.  In early 2000, there were would have been a whole lot of American people who'da Wanna Riot of Their Own, and I bet that a lot of the media would have loved that.

    Our Fearless Leader, (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    Al Gore, told us not to protest before and after the SupCt took and decided the case.  Said or implied it might get out of hand.

    So we sat at home and took it in the shorts, while a parade of establishment Dems in the media all said the same thing, that we may not like the outcome but we respect the orderly process.  

    Bunch of nonsense, both as to demonstrating in the streets and as to the Court's theft of the election for their boy Bush, but the grassroots weren't organized and our tepid leaders as usual were looking for a quick conflict-averse way out.


    There would have been violence... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    and we the people would have run home at the first sign of it...unlike the Egyptian people.

    Bottom line, things just haven't gotten that bad or hopeless here...yet.  Thank goodness.  And thats what it takes to stare down state guns...nothing left to lose.  We may not have much, but we still got stuff to lose.


    kdog maybe you're (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    young or don't know some of the history of protest in the 60s, but plenty of Americans, white, black, lower and middle class, protested on major issues with their lives on the line.  Maybe the protesters of 2000 would have been made of a lot sterner stuff than you imagine, though for sure it's been a few decades since we had regular episodes of people taking to the streets consistently in this country to demand rights and justice and an end to war.  We have become much more passive, though I'm not sure if that means fearful.

    And I sometimes wonder whether our side would have been more outraged and willing to protest an outright theft of that election had a) Gore ran a more vigorous and populist campaign and been more of a galvanizing leader for our party and b) if troublemaker Ralf Nadir hadn't intervened to whine about Gush=Bore making it seem as if the outcome didn't matter anyway.


    Well aware... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    of the 60's protest movements...totally different ball game in 2000...the election sham was abstract, the draft and the dogs sicked on blacks in the south were in your face and very real.

    The difference between Brand D/Brand R sure ain't worth getting locked up, beaten up, or killed over in my book...the prospects facing potential draftees and blacks in the 60's were much more dire...so they hit the street and hit it hard.  In 2000, I sure saw no reason to get my head bashed in, it wasn't gonna get Nader sworn in.


    Add... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:57:00 AM EST
    we also had charismatic leaders in the protest movements in the 60's...MLK, Malcolm, Hoffman, many others...whose passionate speech and acts inspired people to take the risks...such leaders are hard to come by today.

    Also worth mentioning...advances in tyranny technology and techniques...the man is much better at squashing protest today, and the police state generation has reached adulthood...we're a scared lot.


    Also, those particular protest movements... (none / 0) (#81)
    by EL seattle on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    ... made demands for social change, but not for specific and immediate actions.  In his speeches, I don't think MLK ever called for a political leader to resign "right now", or demand that a particular bill be passed... "or else".  That sort of thing probably wouldn't have fit into the "I Have a Dream" speech too well.

    I think that marches and rallys can be very effective as shaming devices, and it takes a helluva lot of guts to go that far in seriously repressive states.  But to try to use a rally or march to establish some sort of instant public veto power or other constitutional change doesn't sound like an effective strategy to me.  But it sure does make for compelling television when lots of people everywhere are angry about all the power being in the hands of people rich enough to by it.


    Actually the CR movement (none / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:29 AM EST
    was both about calling for broad social change and specific in calling for local economic/social change, such as in the bus boycott in Montgomery and the call for economic and political change in Birmingham.

    Also MLK did call specifically for a negotiated political settlement and end to the US involvement in the VN War, and not just for some nice peacenik utopian end to all wars forever.

    Finally, in his last months MLK was going to organize a massive Poor People's March on D.C. intended to force Congress to enact specific programs in the economic justice area -- again, it wasn't just going to be about talking up economic justice with no specific follow through on legislation; in fact, they weren't going to leave until they got legislation passed.  Sort of like his famous 1963 March on Washington, which itself was not just to go there and make a rousing rhetorical case for civil rights for blacks, but it was connected closely to the Kennedy admin CR bill and getting something practical and specific done.

    Ditto the march in Selma in 1965, also both broad and specific, there tied to the voting rights proposal.

    As for getting a president out of power, MLK in the spring of 1968 -- before LBJ's withdrawal -- apparently was going to back anti-incumbent candidate RFK, and a lot more vigorously than he'd quietly backed previous pols.


    Agreed. But he didn't demand, "Now"!! (none / 0) (#101)
    by EL seattle on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    As in "President Johnson, the people can no longer suport you.  Resign immediately."


    "There is a CR bill in congress.  You can pass it by tomorrow afternoon.  We'll wait here."

    Movies and TV drama is often very exciting, but effective political change can usually be expected to take more time than that.


    Of course he couldn't (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    do that with Johnson, two reasons:  1) LBJ had backed the 2 major CR bills and 2) in 1968 there was the process of nominating conventions and regular elections in place, elections which mostly had been fair and honest in our history.

    As for "Now!", again in his final months that planned major Poor People's March , that one was intended to produce major economic justice legislation as the protesters would not leave their encampment until the bill was signed.  Really upset Johnson in fact -- he considered that march a direct threat to himself and to the survival of his presidency.  

    So, no, Now for MLK didn't equal today or tomorrow, but in 1968 that march was probably being planned for a weeks-long stay, which is remarkably fast considering Congress and the enormity of the legislation involved.


    Nothing abstract about (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    the GOP's rent-a-Brooks Bros Mob to shut down the vote count in FL which likely would have gone Gore's way, nor was it abstract when the Sup Ct suddenly and dramatically stepped in where they had no business in order to prevent the FL court from interpreting and implementing its own state laws on the election, nor was it abstract when the Scotus issued the most transparently fraudulent Ct ruling in its history, etc.

    But as I say, it was "raging moderate" Al Gore involved, not a Howard Dean or Geo McGovern or Bobby Kennedy who all stood boldly for strong liberal values.

    Btw, didn't we see a lot of people show up in this country to protest Bush's war in IRaq in early 2003, perhaps numbering a million or so protesters?  How many of those had any direct and personal stake in that war, yet they showed up out of principle.


    I'm not saying... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    the stolen election wasn't important...but we're talking about an election where approx. half the country didn't even vote...it means a lot more to wonks than Joe and Jane Blow, and any protest movement needs Joe and Jane Blow.  Factor in, as you said, no viable leader...and ya got nuthin'.

    As for Iraq war protests in the US...there are protests and there are protests brodie...those were of the stay within the free speech zone barricades and be home by sundown variety...and they were met with the advanced protest quelling techniques I mentioned...people protesting the GOP convention in NY in 2004 had plastic cuffs on seemingly within minutes of hitting the street...the show of force by police and authorities killed it before it even got started.  And since there was no draft, no succeed or die in the desert, the motivation to keep hitting the street day after day just wasn't there...why get locked up for nothing?


    Again, if we take a negative (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    defeatist attitude about protest and the power of authorities and the seeming futility of it all, not much will change and we'll all stay passive and glassy-eyed in front of our teevees.

    And we'll never know what might have happened if the Sup Ct saw a few boisterous and very large sized protest marches outside their chambers as they decided whether to blatantly hand the election to their boy Bush -- or whether they would have stepped in at all had we been out there protesting for counting all the votes in FL and letting everyone know it mattered a lot.


    Cuffs will do that... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    again, we still have some things to lose.

    It takes a special breed of human being to do what you're asking...it would be great if such human beings weren't so rare...but they are.  I know I'm a piker, I don't have it in me...not yet, its gotta get a lot worse for me to take those risks and face the long odds like they are in Egypt.


    well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:40:54 AM EST
    I was on the front lines of some of those demonstrations.  like Bush, Nixon sucked.  he was no Mubarak.  we were mostly protesting what we considered an illegal war and our forced participation in it.  

    its a very different set of grievances from the people in the street in egypt.


    My mind went to (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:51:45 AM EST
    the Labor movement which was well before the 60's and long before my time. Those organizers and protesters were very, very brave souls.

    indeed they were (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    and the civil rights protesters were no slouches either.  fire hoses and dogs.

    just talking about us hippy war protesters.


    The only truly frightening moment (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    in the protests I was at was a mounted policeman's horse moving slowly toward the crowd to push it back.  

    really (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:18:26 AM EST
    a more relevant question might be what if GHWB had ruled for thirty years and tried to install GWB as his successor.

    And 40%... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    in poverty, and a police force to make our cops look like a buncha teddy bears...then maybe we stare down billy clubs and don't blink, like those brave souls in the square for 2 freakin' days straight.

    My hat is seriously off to 'em...I can't imagine the desperation required to fuel such resolve and bravery.


    of course you cant (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:24 AM EST
    no one commenting at this blog can.

    You can say it... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    it's nothing I don't already know...I'm a punk arse selfish b*tch.

    Even if I was a poverty level Egyptian I don't know...ya never really know till you find yourself in that position, what you're made of.  I might be in the square rock in hand, or I might be hiding under a rock with a rock of hash...I like to think the former, but ya never know.


    not what I meant (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    I mean that all the usual suspects trying to equate this to our political process.
    it seems like some quarters are almost panicked that this could possibly have a positive outcome and that horrors this administration might get some of the credit.

    Not for nothin'... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    I think this administration is one of the quarters fearing a positive outcome.

    Proles hitting the street is not something any power structire in the world is down with.


    I think you are (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    wrong.  a positive outcome here would be something even FOX could not criticize.  IMO no one wants that more than Obama and Clinton.

    But Obama and Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    and especially Geithner do not want us getting any ideas from the Egyptian people...not that I think they have anything to worry about, but still...governments hate little 1 million pissed off people on the street, ours is no exception.  

    Not to mention a positive outcome for Egypt is probably a very different animal than a positive outcome for the US and its "interests".

    I don't think they're all that concerned about a gold star from Hannity...not that he would give anything Obama a gold star...Obama could convince Egypt to form a secular US-friendly democracy and pay off our debt to China for us and Hannity would find a way to slam it.


    Hehe (none / 0) (#140)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    I doubt it (re: Fox).  Did you catch last night him yelping about how Al Qaeda is moving in as we speak?  Honestly, they should be happy, they can plan to bomb Egypt now.

    of course thats not what I meant (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    and the idea that Obama and Clinton are in any fearful of this from the standpoint of something similar happening here is honestly a little looney.

    the Kristoff piece (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    That Kristoff piece (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:45:17 PM EST
    is terrific.

    Brought a tear to my cynical old eye.


    Finally the US is out front (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:08:10 AM EST
    this could be a very good day.  This gesture of goodwill IMO could mean so much.  Suleiman hasn't earned the hate yet...this is what I and many others (in Egypt) wanted to hear from our country.

    Suleiman is already hated (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 04:20:39 AM EST
    by the Egyptians.  He's rather well known as "Mr. torture."

    Yes, An important point (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:10:51 AM EST
    that Al Jazeera makes is that the protests are anti-government.

    US media, instead, most often label the protests as anti-Mubarak.  But the protest is not just about him.


    And I think he may know too much (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 06:57:18 AM EST
    about US activities that don't meet the definition of "humane;" that's a fair amount of leverage I don't see the US ignoring.

    Hard to imagine the Egyptian people being satisfied with a transitional leader who is just a younger version of Mubarak - and harder still to imagine the Egyptians being pleased with the US if Suleiman is seen to be installed through our efforts.


    Agree about the people (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    not being happy with Suleiman, but otoh it will be a huge victory for them if Mubarak is forced out, which is objective #1.  And since there is no clear-cut opposition leader apart from the moderate late-emerging El Baradei, the Egyptians might be okay for a while with just getting rid of Mubarak.  But only briefly.

    I suspect Suleiman taking over would have to be accompanied by the announcement of a) rather quick elections -- w/n the next 60 days -- to be b) overseen by an int'l team of election inspectors acceptable to opposition groups.


    both of those things are part of the US deal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:16:25 AM EST
    not sure if its 60 days but part.  another even more important part IMO is that a wide range of opposition groups have to be included in the transition.

    Al Jazeera's reports (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:21:44 AM EST
    and others are not cause for optimism, sadly.

    How can you question (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:24:58 AM EST
    the protest when women like Nawal el-Saddawi are there?  Feminism and oppression don't mix.  My support is at 200% right now.

    And more for you (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:35:06 AM EST
    Who fears a protest (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    that incorporates women?  Only those afraid of women.  Thanks.

    Or rather, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:40:29 AM EST
    unable to see them, and understand their meaning.  Not "fear" per se.

    I fear the protests and I fear for those women. (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:29:23 AM EST
    This is a country with an extremely large fundamentalist base and it has been thrown into chaos. There are women in the protests now. Will their be women in the governemnt a year from now?

    I do not understand this unyielding optimism. This can go so very wrong.


    The unfounded fears of tigercourse (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:19:14 AM EST
    while replying to post # 46, I would like to ask a counter question. Are there women in Parliament in another conservative Muslim country, Turkey? Yes, there are! Some of their faces can be seen in this link.
    Democracies with huge conservative Muslim majorities like Turkey, Bangladesh and Indonesia have even had women heads of states like Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Hasina Wajed and Khaleda Zia (Bangladesh) and Megawati Sukarnoputri (Indonesia).
    Tigercourse's post revealed a startling ignorance of the world. This is the kind of ignorance that politicians and the corporate media in our country exploit.

    "A startling ignorance of the world"? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    Okay, fine. Nothing can possibly go wrong here!

    From now on Egypt will be a secular Wonderland of Equal rights! How could I have been so stupid to think that a country where 84% of the people support executing those found guilty of apostacy might have some trouble putting together a secular government!


    jsut so I understand (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:15:03 AM EST
    you are saying then that our propping up of a bloody dictator is the way to go?

    No. Obviously not. I'm just saying that Egypt (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    after Mubarack might be far worse then it is now. With huge repurcussions not just for them, but the whole world. And I'd love to see people acknowledge that fact rather then act like this is sure or even likely to lead to true reform for the people of Egypt.

    I have to step away from the computer for awhile (have to go help take care of a house with frozen pipes).


    worse for whom? (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    you really think the people of Egypt are gonna sit back and accept something worse?

    worse for us (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:29:33 AM EST

    Yes, quite possibly. I think they could vote (none / 0) (#116)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    something worse into power.

    worse (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    for WHO

    Worse for everybody. Worse for the people (none / 0) (#121)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    of Egypt (a theocratic government isn't good for anyone other then the priests), worse for the region (the one thing the Middle East doesn't need is more radicalization) and worse for the world becuase of the importance of that region.

    And we could've already bombed Iran. (none / 0) (#120)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    That's democracy for you.

    One American poll (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    on a foreign country versus days of demonstration.  (some background on the poll).  

    I think I'm talking about a different poll. Mine (none / 0) (#123)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    showed that the Egyption people were overwhelmingly regressive and in favor of more relgious government.

    Again, the people in the crowd do not necessarily represent the other 85 million people in the country.


    What poll (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    are you talking about?  I think we're talking about the same poll, the Pew poll.  It has a lot of conflicting data in it that can be interpreted in many ways...and also it's just ONE POLL.  I have see at most two polls quoted in the conversation about Egypt.  IMO Polls are just not that useful here.

    You know what I love? Being told I'm an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    for being as little bit sceptical of the formation of a liberal, secular, fair government in a highly religious country coming off of millenia under repressive regimes.

    The blind faith that I've seen in the reporting and analysis of this uprising is pretty damn disturbing. People on the left at least are treating this like an even better thing then people on the right were treating Iraq! This could turn out to be a great thing for the people of Egypt, the rest of the Middle East and the entire World! But it might not be. I'm not going to blindly cheer on a potential disaster for secularism, equal rights and civil rights.


    People sticking up for themselves (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by CST on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    IS and "even better thing" than one country invading another country to kick out a dictator.

    I don't really see how you can argue otherwise.

    Egypt may not turn into a perfect beacon of secular democracy after this.  But it wasn't one before this either.  So I don't really see how this is a potential "disaster".  Worst case scenario, things stay bad.  Best case scenario, they get better.

    People are putting their lives on the line to see that things get better.  I for one wouldn't underestimate their ability to see it through.  That doesn't mean Egypt is going to turn into Eden.  But progress is progress.


    its unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    people from every walk of life and every religion is in the streets fighting and dying for their rights to a democratic government.

    what part of this are people not getting?


    you need to (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    turn off american media.  that would be a good start.

    I'm not watching the American media. I despise (none / 0) (#127)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    the American media.

    You're being fearful (none / 0) (#115)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    Our country is highly religious and yet we somehow manage to get along fairly well, all told.

    Factors that make me confident:

    The protesters embrace technology.
    The protesters respect and protect each other's display of religion.
    Women are widely involved in the protests; when you give people rights they are hard to take away.
    I think Egyptians are very proud of their national identity and heritage; it makes me think they will abide less by actual religion than by civil religion.  This protest is emerging from a "democratic faith" more than any particular religious faith.


    May I add to the factors you list, lilburro? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    My confidence in a possible good outcome eventually for this strong people's uprising is also growing.  I would add that Egypt's position as a significant member of the international economic community bodes well, traditionally, for a successful new government; because, unlike isolated or partially isolated countries that attempt a move from authoritarian rule, there are a number of extant institutions of commerce & trade to tide over the uncertainty a change of this sort entails. For example: The huge international tourism industry throughout Egypt and related industries of historians, archaeologists, artists, etc. has meant a real interaction with the world community. For example #2: The reality of the Suez Canal and the outreach that necessarily means will continue. For example #3: Egypt's diplomatic role over the past few generations is not likely to be relinquished by most any successor...it was hard earned, and my understanding is that the role of a center of the pan-Arabic world and interlocutor with the West may well be a position that the country would rightly guard.

    While we all know other examples of revolutions gone wrong, we stand in America as our own example of revolution that created what was sought. There are reasons, indeed, to believe that Egypt will determine its own destiny as well.
    (The fact that the change may not happen today does not mean that the momentum isn't there for it to happen tomorrow or in a short time thereafter.)


    First of all, America is not getting along fairly (none / 0) (#118)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    well. It's in decline.

    The protestors will not automatically control the government when Mubarak is gone.

    It's actually very easy to take away rights from people. If the choice for women is stay at home in a Burka or face violence, they will stay at home.


    they are not staying home now (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:47:36 AM EST
    they are in the streets in great numbers.

    I wonder if you can take a step back and understand how colonial what you are saying sounds.

    who the hell are you to tell the millions of people in the streets that you know what better for them than they do.


    I don't see what is "colonial" about (none / 0) (#125)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    worrying about the decisions of others. This isn't some Rudyard Kipling, poor little savages bullcrap, this is a genuine belief that people, from any and every culture, can make some really bad choices, particularly when they are religious fundamentalists.

    so (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    we come full circle back to the strongman approach.

    I meant "fairly well" in terms (none / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    of religious tolerance.

    I don't understand how you see the Egyptian people electing a regime that is that oppressive.  You're describing a nightmare...that possibility is present in every society.  The way this has unfolded doesn't particularly support that view.


    The Council on Foreign Relations (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    with a little background on the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The author argues that while they MB says they have become "more pragmatic" in recent years, the US must engage them now.  

    Some analysts dismiss these fears  pointing to the differences between a powerful Shia clergy in Iran and a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. "Sunni Muslims don't have a doctrine of owing implicit obedience to their clergy, and the clergy are not as important in Sunni religious life as the Shiite Ayatollahs are in Iran," writes Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan. Also, experts point out that the Muslim Brotherhood is hardly the most important religious group in the country. The Quietist Salafist movement and Sufis are part of the main religious groups in the country.

    However, CFR's Husain says Egypt going the Iran way is a genuine fear. "Then, secular democrats triggered a revolution only to be brushed aside by fundamentalists. Today, ordinary Egyptians lead demonstrations, but the Brotherhood waits in the background; an indispensable force in national life." He says the United States must begin to engage the Muslim Brotherhood today.


    Leslie Gelb, CFR's president emeritus who has served as a senior official in the U.S. State and Defense Departments, says if the brotherhood rose to power in Egypt,  it "would be calamitous for U.S. security." He adds: "It would be delusory to take the MB's democratic protestations at face value." Former CIA Officer Bruce Riedel, an expert of Middle East and South Asia, adds: "living with it won't be easy, but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy." He recommends: "We need not demonize it nor endorse it."

    But some analysts point to changing realities on the ground to advocate engagement with the organization. Isolation of the group, some argue, means Washington would lose leverage with any future governments the Brotherhood is a part of. CFR's Husain cautions Washington should neither isolate the group nor strengthen them unwittingly. Engagement, he says, must be based on issues. "Pluralism, human rights, and Israel must therefore be at the heart of talks with Egypt's Islamists."

    And more, from a former member of the MB.


    some background on Leslie Gelb (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    During the 2011 Egyptian protests against President Hosni Mubarak, Salon.com noted that Gelb "seem[ed] to be growing into the role of the Egyptian dictator's freelance spokesman in America."[4]

    Yep (none / 0) (#171)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    "They care about Islamic law but they don't really know what they mean by that." -- Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution

    This is key and I think you can see the ambivalence in the Pew poll results.  Here is an article that addresses the same issue from a theoretical POV.  I know the author and why his stuff landed at the Hoover Institution I don't really know.  I wouldn't describe him as conservative.  

    This is a great article too - 4 Reasons Why Egypt's Revolution Is Not Islamic.


    Personally (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:52:57 AM EST
    I think you are sizing up Egypt wrong.  I don't think fundamentalism meshes with democracy or women's rights.  Heroes will come out of this and some will be women.  I don't think Egypt is going to turn back the clock.

    many not only will be women (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:54:34 AM EST
    but already have been.

    like the employees of state tv (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    an anchor for 20 years quit over coverage of this and it now telling western media about the propaganda being sold by nile tv.  and others.

    And I'm not afraid of women. (none / 0) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:31:06 AM EST
    As the songwriter says (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    Wiki leaks U.S. State Dept. cables (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:29:10 AM EST
    re Egypt's new VP Suleiman: ABC

    WSWS: Obama's crocodile tears over violence (none / 0) (#14)
    by Andreas on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:37:47 AM EST
    Obama (none / 0) (#145)
    by star on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    Is the president of USA. not of Egypt. When he gave the Cairo speech, it was not his business to downplay the US Egypt relationship. He went there with a message of Peace and understanding, not to stir the hornets nest (even if needed stirring it was not his place to do so until people got out into streets like they are doing now).
    Arab world will find a way to HATE america no matter what. Obama will never be loved so long as he is US president. Best course for him and USA would be to pull back all aid all over the world to regimes.Let them fend for themselves. It might work towards deficit reduction too :)
    They need our money to hate us. enough is enough. Obama is the best ally the Arab world has, and all they can do is find reasons to equate him with Bush et al.There was a program in Al Jazz couple of days ago with Nadar and some other guys in the panel.. some of the fellows from mid east was hugely critical of O.

    Proposals promoted by Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by Andreas on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:02:23 AM EST
    It is now widely reported that the proposal promoted by the Obama administration is the creation of a military dictatorship lead by the torturer in chief Suleiman.

    what are they supposed to do (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    start pulling names out of a hat?

    or maybe you would prefer (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:08:38 AM EST
    they put one of the generals in charge.

    Suleiman is a general... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:17:37 AM EST
    and former head of military intelligence.

    also (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:24:14 AM EST
    I would think it is important that he is keeping his pledge that the demonstrations will not be attacked today.

    <snort> Yeh. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    before days end (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:20:39 AM EST
    you may have to admit Obama did something right.

    or see it even if you dont admit it.


    Amazingly, this really is not about (none / 0) (#59)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    Obama.  Or us.  Or you.

    I am thinking of the Egyptian people, among the many people who have been betrayed by our previous presidents.  Us. . . .


    then I assume (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:59:59 AM EST
    you will agree with them if they take the deal.

    If who takes the deal? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    Do you think Obama and Clinton are working this out with the people, or do you think they are working this out with the existing power structure?

    While I completely understand that regime change is not an overnight thing, I think it's important to understand and appreciate that the Egyptian people have no reason to trust that replacing Mubarak with his trusted lieutenant - Suleiman - even on a temporary/transitional basis, will set the stage for reform.

    These people are mad as hell, and having tasted the freedom of expression and protest, are not likely to be placated with leaders who come straight out of the Mubarak government; imagine George W. Bush stepping down and Cheney taking over on a "temporary" basis - what are the chances you would believe for a nanosecond that this was "transition" and not "continuation."

    But, it's up to them - it's their decision whether to accept - or reject - whatever "deal" Obama works out; it's also important to remember that the more obvious the fingerprints of the US are on this, the more Obama better be praying that this goes well.

    I don't think the Egyptian people are going to appreciate the slow pace of diplomatic efforts - we were slow on the uptake to begin with, and events are not likely to go into a holding pattern while the details are being worked out.


    strange (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    absence of burning american flags and effigies of Obama.  
    you know I even saw a gigantic sign that said "YES WE CAN.  TOO"

    that must have really galled you.


    I think it's a remarkable and historic (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    turn of events, and I am hoping - as is everyone I know - for the best outcome possible for the people of Egypt; I am concerned - as are others - that Suleiman, given his close ties to Mubarak, may not be entirely what the protestors had in mind when they started on this journey.

    There is nothing about the "Yes We Can Too" sign that galls me - because there is nothing about freedom that galls me.  

    Your baiting, however, is a little annoying.


    maybe we should (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    let the protesters decide that.

    Yes, hence the, "But, it's up to them - (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    it's their decision whether to accept - or reject - whatever "deal" Obama works out" that was part of my original comment.

    Perhaps you missed that.


    so (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    who should be put in charge? and who picks that person.

    I have no idea who should be in charge; (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    there are a lot of components to this, and the scary part is that events really are moving so quickly that there isn't a lot of time for a truly deliberative course, so we all have to hope that the seat-of-the-pants decisions prove to be the right ones.

    You should read KeysDan's comment at #130, if you haven't already; it seems do-able, and could allay fears that Suleiman would be a continuation of the Mubarak regime.


    I read it when he posted it (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    and it is pretty much exactly what I have been saying.

    former being the operative word (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    clearly you and others will focus in this and ignore the more important fact that Mubarak would be gone.  I doubt the people in egypt will have similar tunnel vision.

    Again, the Al Jazeera I'm watching (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:23:47 AM EST
    keeps repeating that the protesters are not protesting just Mubarak but his regime, his government, and Suleiman is part of it.

    So the protesters may, in the end, be forced to accept an allegedly temporary Suleiman administration, but it would seem that they would not like it -- and if he pulls a Mubarak and stays longer, that would have solved nothing.  Except, perhaps, to make our government happy to get this off the to-do list for now.


    the people I am watching do not (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:25:37 AM EST
    seem to be in the mood to be forced to do anything.
    its a deal.  a deal means compromises.  to get rid of Mubarak and get elections now I believe they will take the deal.  

    for the record (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:26:22 AM EST
    who would you put in charge.

    I can see (none / 0) (#61)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:59:28 AM EST
    this is going to be one of those days here.  

    Bye now.


    I guess (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    thats an answer

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    the focus is still on Mubarak...I thought Suleiman's speech yesterday was nutty but it doesn't seem to have changed the nature of the protests.  If we can get Mubarak to leave today that would be amazing.  The US is doing the right thing here I think.

    Socialist revolution (none / 0) (#135)
    by Andreas on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    To answer your question.

    I am not an adviser for the administration led by Barack Obama. That government will do what it thinks is in the best interest of the ruling capitalist class in the US.

    I am a supporter of the interests of the international working class.

    The task of workers in Egypt is not to replace Mubarak by another president representing the capitalist class and imperialism but to build organs of workers power and to create a workers state.

    Workers in Egypt can only successfully defeat the regime and imperialism when they base their struggle on the perspective of socialist world revolution and the theory of permanent revolution.

    BTW: The Socialist Equality Party and the International Students for Social Equality are organising a number of meetings on Egypt:

    Public meetings in the US
    The Revolution in Egypt


    he will go (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    I guess we all know by now that there is a US plan being discussed where he would step down now and turn power over to the VP.  I think there will be news today.  good news.  the army is out in force and no violence so far.

    meanwhile back in the clueless US media bubble.  I heard the best line yet this morning.  Joe and Tweety were bemoaning the sad treatment of a 30 year ally.  and wondering what chilling effect it would have on all our "allies in the region" (aka out other puppet dictators) and Tweety compared Mubarak to Kitty Genovese.  the famous rape victim who screamed and no one came.  

    I swear.  I am not making this up.

    going to be an interesting day.

    The man is insane (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    seriously (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    I ask you.  who could have come up with that but him

    Sounds like Chris (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:05:29 AM EST
    has stopped taking his meds again.  Interesting too how often he seems to get into trouble with matters involving women.

    As for Joe, Pat Buchanan et al and Mubarak, these people are probably autocrats at heart -- well actually Pat Buchanan likes 'em more dictator than mere autocrat -- and as authoritarian-oriented conservatives they prefer notions of law and order and stability over actual freedom and democracy.

    Tweety has always been a Cold Warrior at heart -- if not fighting the Commies, he gets energized thinking about how we should be fighting the terrorists.  In the Carter admin, he undoubtedly favored the Zbig hardline FP faction over the softer human-rights approach of SoS Cy Vance.


    AJ reports (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:14:40 AM EST
    that senior army officials are present in the square making sure yesterday is not repeated.  all the brass is there.  not watching from a distance.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:48:17 AM EST
    nice musical thinking btw.  one of the reasons I subject myself to morning joe, other than the fact that cable wise there is no other choice, is their choice of music.

    this morning when talking about Mubarak they were playing this.  oh what a lonely boy indeed.

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    excellent choice.

    I've had several Clash tunes stuck in my dome due to Egypt...this jam, of course "Rock the Casbah", "Guns of Brixton", "Revolution Rock", and others.

    I wish Joe was here to see this and sing about this.


    AJ (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:50:49 AM EST
    army arresting pro Mubarak demonstrators.

    seeminly intentionally (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:51:32 AM EST
    frog marching them through the crowd.

    former minister of trade and industry (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:02:45 AM EST
    has his assets seized and not allowed to leave the country.  adding to a fairly long list of others in the same circumstance.

    wow (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    crowd goes wild.  calls heard to head for the presidential palace.

    chanting (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    he will leave
    he will leave

    state tv (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    carrying the first interview with a protest leader.

    wow.  that is big.  up until now they have ignored this completely.

    saying they will stay in the square (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    calling on people to join them until Mubarak is gone.  I cant overstate how big a deal this is.

    this is real evidence that the tide is turning.


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    He's told them the Muslim Brotherhood has organized the whole thing, which is patently untrue, so speculation - on Al Jazeera, anyway - is that he may not be a protester at all and that he might have been sent to state TV by Mubarak and/or his allies.

    There is also a rumor that's making its way through the crowd that Mubarak has stepped down, which is causing some to leave.

    This seems, to me, to be a very coordinated misinformation effort on the part of the current regime.


    the fact is (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    the MB has done a lot of the organizing.  it was a positive statement about the protesters.  if you know anything about what has been happening you understand what a 180 that is.
    as far as the rumor.  it had little effect if that was the intent.  more people pouring into the streets.

    Rumor (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    I do know it's a huge deal that state TV has apparently interviewed a protester.  I'm simply cautious because the tactics common to this and to other repressive regimes have taught me to be.

    also reports of them (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    reporting on "peaceful" pro Mubarak demonstrations.

    so maybe not 180.  160 perhaps.


    for example (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    just yesterday state tv was inciting violence against anti Mubarak protesters and foreign media.  being blamed for a lot of the Anderson Cooper type encounters.

    Haha (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    I have Al Jazeera on for the first time at work today.  The quality of the coverage and perspectives is depressing me.  Why must our media suck so badly.  Our reporters are doing great work over there though...it's amazing to hear them interviewed and then completely ignored by hosts/pundits.

    indeed (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:33:09 AM EST
    they will give someone who actually knows what is happening 10 seconds and them proceed with the mindless prattling

    Sean Hannity actually said last night (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    "would Reagan do this!!"  So funny.

    I actually saw that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    with Hell Bent Bozell.  what a show.

    He's got to go (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    These protests can't go on forever.  Maybe that's his plan - try and wait them out.

    the protesters would disagree (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    millions in the street right now. (just heard that on aj).  they say they are staying until he is gone.

    personally my money is on the protesters lasting longer than the rich business men who rely on the tourist trade.

    what percent of egypts economy would you say is based on tourism? and how may tourists are planning an egypt trip right now?


    It isn't just "rich businessmen" (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    who rely on income from tourism.  

    I get that (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    But it's just human nature - you can't have a million people (or whatever) show up day after day to protest for weeks and weeks.  It just can't happen. Eventually the gas runs out.

    And I think him holding out has helped the rest of the leaders in his neighboring countries get their ducks in a row, which is why you haven't seen as big of protests and chaos break out (yet).


    IMO (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    you greatly underestimate the rage pent up over 30 years.

    Ok (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    If these go on for months, the world will lose interest and move on to the next shiny object, and the protests will lose steam because a great deal of their energy and support will come from the foreign press reporting.

    Do we see much coverage of Haiti relief efforts anymore?  (Answer:  No)

    How about the Red Shirt protests in Thailand?  (Nope)

    The Greek protests?  (No)

    The protests in France?  (No).

    People will move on.


    you will (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    move on.  as for me I suspect that as long as there are millions in the streets of Cairo it will be covered.

    from Kristoff today (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:43:26 AM EST
       Amr (I'm not using some last names to reduce the risks to people I quote) was being treated for a wound from a flying rock. I asked him as politely as I could what a double-amputee in a wheelchair was doing in a pitched battle involving Molotov cocktails, clubs, machetes, bricks and straight razors.

        "I still have my hands," he said firmly. "God willing, I will keep fighting."

    US is not the world (none / 0) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    Yes, US media will move on because they are all about Washington access... heck, you can hardly get traditional nor cable news to pay attention to the country let alone others.

    If you cover other media, they do continue to cover issues.  The whole world is not appeased by having reality tv and an Ipad like USians.


    in fact it might be better if they did move on (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    hard to tell who is worse Beck or Matthews.

    So those protests I mentioned (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Those still be covered 24 hours a day?  Those still going on?

    Protests cannot continue every day all day for weeks or months.  Something will give - either Murbarak will leave, they will be forcefully stopped, or the protestors (little by little) will not come out every day and it will peter out.

    Not saying the will still won't be there, but it's physically impossible to keep up this energy level for weeks and months at a time.


    yes (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    believe it or not if a tree falls and an american is not watching it still makes a sound.

    Actually, no - they really aren't (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    you think what he is doing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    is helping others in the region.

    I would disagree.


    I would say (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    is he left 4 days ago, we'd see more violent protests across the region.  Right now they are holding back, because no one knows how this is going to end.

    also (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    those other countries really "getting their ducks in a row"  like the King of Jordan firing the Prime Minister and hiring a new one.  thatll work.

    I expect you (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:04:09 AM EST
    to challenge Capt Howdy's crowd size estimate, but can we get it over with quickly? :)

    Why start on argument on a Friday? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    I'm only working until noon today, the sun is out, I'm going to have fun later - why bother?

    The Egypt Deal? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    The SoS seems to be on a mission to bring to focus some elements of her world view that some of us found so abhorrent. It seems she had also weighed in against suggestions (such as those made by United States Ambassador to the United Nataions, Susan Rice) to put more pressure on Mubarak.

    Excerpts from the NYT article.
    "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking to a conference here, said it was important to support Mr. Suleiman as he seeks to defuse street protests and promises to reach out to opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood"

    "But Mrs. Clinton suggested that the United States was not insisting on the immediate departure of Mr. Mubarak, and that such an abrupt shift of power may not be necessary or prudent"

    "Mrs. Clinton expressed fears about deteriorating security inside Egypt, noting the explosion at a gas pipeline in the Sinai Peninsula, and uncorroborated media reports of an earlier assassination attempt on Mr. Suleiman"
    "American officials said they have no evidence that the report is accurate. But Mrs. Clinton picked up on it and said it "certainly brings into sharp relief the challenges we are facing as we navigate through this period"

    "She also underlined the need to support Egypt's state institutions, including the army and financial institutions, which she said were functioning and respected. Economic pressures are building in Egypt, she said, which has been paralyzed by days of street demonstrations"