Mubarak refuses to go and Obama is backing him up.

[hulka38]

That's the bottom line of this statement by the President on Friday: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Obama+makes+statement+Egypt/4187669/story.html

"...this moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise. The United States has a close partnership with Egypt and we've cooperated on many issues, including working together to advance a more peaceful region. But we've also been clear that there must be reform -- political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people."

- He talks about this moment of volatility as if it's a bad thing. It's a moment where the people of Egypt can no longer contain themselves and are screaming out for freedom. It's only been a moment because for thirty years Mubarak has successfully suppressed them, until now.


"Now, ultimately the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. And I believe that the Egyptian people want the same things that we all want -- a better life for ourselves and our children, and a government that is fair and just and responsive. Put simply, the Egyptian people want a future that befits the heirs to a great and ancient civilization. The United States always will be a partner in pursuit of that future. And we are committed to working with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people -- all quarters -- to achieve it."

- In other words, the Egyptian people are going to have a better future because Mubarak is going to give it to them and America is going to see that it happens. That's fantasy land stuff. I wonder how the Egyptian people feel about this promise between Mubarak and a U.S. President, their two favorite and most trusted people.


Mubarak got what he wanted - the public backing of President Obama with a warning to the Egyptian people: no support for this movement from the U.S. if it's not peaceful. With the death toll already at dozens, isn't it a little too late for that? Does Obama not know that it's already turned very deadly? And who's to blame for these deaths? Doesn't Mubarak bare as much if not more responsibility for the violence than the protestors? Anyway, this seems like a revolution, not a protest demonstration. The Egyptians aren't looking for concessions. They are going all in and they want Mubarak out. That is what they are clearly saying. They don't want promises of reform. Mubarak had thirty years to do that. These so-called "concrete steps" of reform are only being proposed because of a massive revolt that Mubarak can't snuff out easily and quietly. The people want Mubarak out. President Obama has decided to publicly get in the way of the Egyptian people's ability to determine their own destiny.

[ProSense]

1. Makes one wonder why

the President ever says anything when it doesn't matter. People will still put words into his mouth.

The National Post.

[hulka38]

3. How do you

construct a statement that backs Mubarak remaining in power while sounding like you back the people he's oppressed for three decades?

[ProSense]

5. The National Post is a RW rag. n/t

[hulka38]

7. Who cares where the transcript is from?

Do you think they altered it?

[ProSense]

12. I do

Should we link to the National Post for all news and analyses?

At least indicate that the link is to a RW source.

[hulka38]

14. A transcript from the

National Post is going to look exactly the same as a transcript from the Russian Times or anywhere else. I didn't even know it was RW. It looked Canadian at first glance. I think it came up third on my google search right below the National Review and another RW source. I still don't see why it matters to you? Revenue from your clicking on it?

[ProSense]

26. Maybe, but

I still think RW rags should be identified.

People have a tendency to think that often linked to sites are legitimate. Then when the distortions begin to fly it becomes confusing.

The Daily Caller is a perfect example.

[hulka38]

28. As I explained,

I didn't and don't intend to link to RW sites in the future so it shouldn't be an issue. But point taken. For the purposes of this post I was looking for a quick link to the transcript. Having read it yesterday, I knew it was legitimate when I saw it. I promise not to link to the Daily Caller.

[barbiegeek]

11. Thank You

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. Yes, it certainly is!!!!

[elocs]

2. Take a step back into reality. Did anyone really expect a U.S. president

to go against the president of a foreign country who is considered to be a friend of this country?

[hulka38]

6. It's not about my expectations.

It's an interpretation of a very political statement. And it sounds like you don't disagree with it fundamentally.

[elocs]

17. What it sounds like is that my grasp of reality is not to expect Obama to say anything different

than what he did. I may not agree with reality, the way things are, but at least I have the ability to recognize it.

[hulka38]

18. Grasping reality is good.

Do you disagree fundamentally with my interpretation of the statement?

[elizm]

4. Bullshit. nt

[phleshdef]

8. Yea, he should act like a chest beating neocon and use US will to topple another government.

We should completely scrap the alliance we've had with the egyptian government and cry for Mubarak's overthrow, thereby sticking our nose in yet another middle eastern affair, where it squarely doesn't belong... all just to make someone like you happy.

[Happyhippychick]

9. Plus one

[hulka38]

10. Where did I advocate that?

[barbiegeek]

13. By saying Obama should pick sides first and not even discuss Americans in Egypt

[SidDithers]

24. You may not have actually said that...

but that's what I interpreted your comments to mean.

Sid

[hulka38]

27. I wanted Obama

to chest thump like a neo-con and cry for the overthrow of Mubarak?

[SidDithers]

30. Yup, that's my interpretation of your comments...nt

Sid

[hulka38]

31. Anything specifically

tip off that illusion?

[tekisui]

19. Our nose is very deep in Egypt's affair.

You act as if we have no relationship with Mubarak and that Obama is powerless against him.

[jeanpalmer]

33. Doesn't he act like a chest beating neocon

when he sends out his drones and assassination squads? Why hold back on Mubarrak, why is he special?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lint Head]

16. This does not bode well for the Egyptian American community.

[dionysus]

20. k&u for spreading manure

[jenmito]

58. +1. n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hulka38]

22. Thanks

but it's not that hard. There's almost no challenge to the content. Jonny, does this thought ever cross your mind - those damn Egyptians wanting their freedom are making my President look bad.

[SidDithers]

23. Hey, why not listen to what the President actually said...

instead of your interpretation of what he said?

Sid

[hulka38]

25. Because

he constructed a statement that backs Mubarak remaining in power while sounding like he backs the people that Mubarak has oppressed for three decades. And I'm going to call bullshit on that.

[laugle]

29. And that's

a surprise.........it's soooo predictable.............

[paulk]

32. I didn't get that from his statement

Obama is walking a pretty fine line here and so far doing it well.

[hulka38]

34. I don't blame you.

The guy is really talented at what he does.

[paulk]

55. I don't think that's fair

and I think this thread is bullshit

[BklnDem75]

35. Not just spin, but spin on crack

Thanks but no thanks. I'll take my info from the source without a RW spin. Is this what some have been reduced to? No bashing from legit sites?

[hulka38]

36. It's a link to the transcript.

Read the transcript from wherever you want. It should be exactly the same.

[BklnDem75]

37. I assumed the spin was coming from the site

Why are you spinning Obama's response?

Edit: Meant it as a reply... ah well.

[hulka38]

38. Did you read the transcript

from the site of your choosing?

Read post #31 to answer your question.

[BklnDem75]

41. Yes I did. What do you propose a president say?

Do you think beyond your own feelings what a demand to step down would mean? Not just with Egypt but other countries we consider allies that's in similar situations. Should he be removed with force? I honestly don't understand your stance with your position on the Iraq/Afghanistan.

[hulka38]

43. The OP is about

my interpretation of the President's statement. You called it spin. Let's address that first. What in my OP is spin specifically?

[BklnDem75]

50. Do you know what spin is?

Spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. In your case, you interpreted Obama's response in your own negative light starting with the title.

'In other words, the Egyptian people are going to have a better future because Mubarak is going to give it to them and America is going to see that it happens.'

Was that his words or your words? It's certainly not what I read.

[hulka38]

52. So let's start with the title.

What do you disagree with? Is Obama not backing Mubarak up with his statement?

[BklnDem75]

54. No

He's giving the leader of an allied country a chance to deal with his mess. That's not the same thing.

[hulka38]

57. So he's supporting

the leader of xyz in the hope that he will deal with the mess.

[BklnDem75]

59. If that's what you want to call it

It's not the President's job to replace leaders of other countries. The Egyptian government hasn't responded violently to the situation, so there's no need interfere.

[hulka38]

60. Would you

agree or disagree with this statement, "Obama is supporting the leader of Egypt in the hope that he will deal with this mess" ?

I want you to think about this one for a while because it's a tuffy. Keep in mind you said, Obama is "giving the leader of an allied country a chance to deal with his mess."

[BklnDem75]

61. No because it's inaccurate

That didn't take long at all. Letting someone deal with their problems is not the same as supporting them.

Before Suleiman's appointment, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. wanted to see Mubarak fulfill his pledges of reform as protests swept the country.

"The Egyptian government can't reshuffle the deck and then stand pat," Crowley said on his Twitter account. "President Mubarak's words pledging reform must be followed by action."

Crowley said Egyptians "no longer accept the status quo. They are looking to their government for a meaningful process to foster real reform."

After speaking to Mubarak by telephone late Friday, Obama delivered a four minute statement calling on the Egyptian leader to take steps to democratize his government and refrain from using violence against his people.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_egypt


Hardly something I'd call support. Do you think making ultimatums will help or hurt Egyptians?

[hulka38]

62. But Obama wants to see

Mubarak stay in power.

[BklnDem75]

63. That's more assumption than anything, but

that wouldn't surprise me. We're allies. His replacement might hate our guts. It's more convenience than anything.

[hulka38]

64. If Obama wants Mubarak to initiate reforms

then Mubarak must be in power for that to occur, right?

[BklnDem75]

66. A bit backwards...

Mubarak IS in power, so he's the only one that can initiate reforms.

[hulka38]

67. Right.

Mubarak would have remain in power to initiate the reforms that Obama is calling for.

[BklnDem75]

68. Um... ok...

Mubarak is the only one he can suggest these reforms to. If Mubarak wasn't leading, there wouldn't be a crisis nor a need to mention reforms. After 30 years in power, nothing short of a revolution is gonna make him step down voluntarily. Once again, that does not mean Obama supports Mubarak.

[hulka38]

70. Obama doesn't support

everything Mubarak does and isn't necessarily a big supporter of him in general but in this critical moment, according to the statement he made, Obama supports Mubarak remaining in power.

[BklnDem75]

71. You can't gather that from his statement

You're making an assumption because his statement says nothing of the sort. He supports a peaceful solution and he's clearly with the people on this. If anything he supports having an ally. If Mubarak was replaced with another ally, he'd be just as supportive.

[hulka38]

72. When Vice President

Joe Biden said that Mubarak should not step down in an interview with Jim Lehrer on Thursday, wasn't he saying that Mubarak should remain in power at this time?

[BklnDem75]

73. So we're not discussing Obama's reply anymore?

Do you think it's good foreign policy for any administration to call for the leader of an allied country to step down? Did you think Biden was going to say anything else? You're comparing feeling to diplomacy.

[hulka38]

74. Earlier

you wrote that I was wrong to draw the conclusion that the Obama administration supports Mubarak remaining in power. Now I tell you that his VP said Thursday (one day before the President released his statement) that Mubarak should not step down and therefore remain in power. How do you reconcile this?

[BklnDem75]

75. You never answered my question

When you can answer it honestly, you'll find you've answered your own question.

[golfguru]

39. Obama is well advised to support President for life Mubarak

because otherwise the Muslim Brotherhood takes over and we have
another Iran on the scene.

[RBInMaine]

42. This is an internal matter. It is our place to allow them to sort it out for THEMSELVES one way or

the other.

[boppers]

44. Great. Fox News as a credible source.

pft.

[hulka38]

46. A transcript

is going to read the same regardless of where you read it. I explained this up thread.

[boppers]

48. No, this is a transcript:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=602387&mesg_id=602387

Editorial slant is not a transcript.

[hulka38]

51. I linked to a transcript in my OP.

I've been informed that it's from a RW sight but why should that matter? A transcript is a transcript regardless of where you read it - unless you believe they've altered it. I was not claiming that my entire OP was a transcript, obviously.

[boppers]

53. Altering a transcript via selective quotation is a form of editorializing.

A person can read the full remarks, and notice that several editorial slants have taken the exact opposite meaning of the original words.

For example, one could claim that the President has given full support to the protesters:

"The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere."

"Violence will not address the grievances of the Egyptian people. And suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. What’s needed right now are concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people: a meaningful dialogue between the government and its citizens, and a path of political change that leads to a future of greater freedom and greater opportunity and justice for the Egyptian people."


See how that works?

[hulka38]

56. Anyone can read

the entire transcript via the link I provided to get their context. I think it should be clear that the excepts I took did not constitute the entire transcript. Yes, of course I was editorializing. This was my interpretation of Obama's statement.

[SanchoPanza]

45. Heads of state deal with other heads of state.

The only exception is when a foreign head of state is held by a symbolic office. Like the monarchy and viceregal offices of the British Commonwealth, or the Presidencies of nations like Isreal. In those cases, the Prime Minister is the unofficial head of state while the official head of state plays a ceremonial role.

The Presidency of Egypt is not a ceremonial role. Not only does it have full and independent powers as a head of state, it also has significant powers as head of the government since Egypt has been under an official and near uninterrupted "state of emergency" since the Six Day War (1967). And, barring declared states of war or military action, no President will openly advocate (or has, to my knowledge, openly advocated) that a foreign head of state be violently overthrown by their own citizenry over disputes internal to that country.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[craigmatic]

49. Egypt is a hard issue. On one hand they're a big needed ally in the region. On the other, they

oppress their own people. We should stay out of the mess altogether and back whoever comes out on top after the strife is over. That's what the French would do.

[hulka38]

65. A large subthread

of this post is missing. Is there any explanation for this?

[Cali_Democrat]

69. I'd prefer it if the US not take sides

I'd prefer the dictator to be overthrown, but we should not overtly support this.

Meddling in the Middle East has caused us nothing but trouble for decades.

[ZombieHorde]

76. I read the transcript in the in provided link and my interpretation is different.

I think President Obama was trying to speak for the Egyptian protesters without sounding imperialistic.