Hillary Clinton actually said they won't take sides...WTF?!

[OKDem08]

The truth is apparent now to all who are even marginally paying attention. The only thing that makes this an issue with TPTB is because of America's "national security interests" aka the

oil reserves of the middle east

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. Didn't they take sides when it came to Equatorial Guinea (just 1 recent example)? nt

[roguevalley]

9. She said the Mubaraks were personal friends. Nice.

[FarPoint]

2. Hillary Clinton

Takes direct orders from the President ....Obama will sit on the bench for now.

[Renew Deal]

3. Not taking sides is taking sides

It's taking the side of those not in power.

[inna]

5. or vice versa

[Cali_Democrat]

6. True. n/t

[Ignis]

15. You've nailed it.

[frylock]

16. only in the eyes of an authoritarian would that make sense

[Renew Deal]

18. Care to explain?

:shrug:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. We didn't take sides in Iraq either and look how well that is turning out.....

On Edit to ADD: kicked and recced.

[jberryhill]

7. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

So the US should be interfering with internal Egyptian politics at this point, and deciding who should run the country, or not?

It's an internal Egyptian matter, and the Egyptians are going to have to sort it out.

[Tesha]

13. Iraq was "an internal matter" as well, but that didn't stop us. (NT)

[jberryhill]

14. I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq

So, I don't get your point.

You are saying that "since Bush invaded Iraq" then Obama should do... what?

I remain awfully glad that we got rid of George W. Bush.

[GSLevel9]

8. naaah...

just sticking up for a ME ally that helps us chase and kill the other brown people.

[JVS]

10. Not taking sides is as much support as an insurrection can count on.

Taking sides against an established government means technically going to war. Do you think we should be at war with Egypt?

[AngryOldDem]

11. Again...this is what happens when you support (tacitly or otherwise) repressive regimes.

Eventually they cannot be defended, which leaves governments like the U.S. that act more or less out of pure self-interest in uncomfortable positions when those regimes fail, as they almost always eventually do. As someone in the thread says, damned if we do, damned if we don't. But the government put us in this position.

[jberryhill]

17. The facts of life put us in this position

Look, there are a billion people in China and we have to deal with whatever government is there. That doesn't mean an endorsement of what is going on in Tibet.

Egypt was the first country in the area to make peace with Israel, and they are rightly favored by the US for that fact.

It's a mixed bag - every relationship with every other country is a mixed bag.

The question is really in "How do we use our influence with the governments that are in place?"

And this is an illuminating answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110010191338884.html

"WASHINGTON—The Obama administration Friday threatened to cut off its $1.5 billion in annual aid to Egypt if security forces in the world's largest Arab nation continue to use violence to crush antigovernment protests sweeping the country, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said."

We cannot simply waltz into Cairo and tell everyone there what to do. We can, and should, use our engagement with existing governments, such as they are, to influence them in constructive ways.

[readmoreoften]

12. How could they? They're friends are the ones who fund Mubarak.