The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    acanuck's picture

    DENIAL IS JUST A REGIME IN EGYPT

    By acanuck on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 9:46pm |

    Today's pair of speeches by Mubarak and Suleiman have left me speechless.

    Ditto for President Obama. After optimistically predicting this afternoon the world was about to watch history unfold, he avoided appearing on camera to eat his words. But the White House's written statement conveyed a clear sense of disappointment, if not betrayal.

    What Mubarak and Suleiman may have done with their two incmpetent, self-serving, defiant speeches is rule both of them out as partners in the coming transition. People are parsing the speeches and suggesting that, hidden within, there exists the transfer of power that everyone has been telling the regime to implement.

    Whether the words are there or not no longer matters. What the people in Tahrir Square and around Egypt heard was the tone of defiance, the patronizing, the blame-shifting, the duplicity that is the underlying reason this regime has lost the mandate of heaven.

    Obama's statement included these words: "Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society." If he really believes that, Obama needs to give a clear signal -- to the protesters and to the army, which has not yet laid down its cards -- that Mubarak and his evil twin both need to go. Now.

    Comments

    Egypt, like India, is under C. I. A. rule. After I showed in my press release dated January 30, 2011 that "a person of color cannot be the Americans' legitimate president", the U.S. vice president, Biden, who is white, called Manmohan Sigh about something rather than Obama because, as I showed, the word of a person of color has no value. The word of a white American is also worthless but in a different way; see my blog (see below) about the word of B. F. Skinner at Harvard University where "India's greatest scientist and greatest living Indian publicly tortured in Harvard seminar, systematically and totally starved for up to 3 weeks at a time, made semi-starved and homeless and even blind for years, kept under 24-hour audio and video surveillance as well as surveillance of communications and electrical typewriter and computer use, document creation and photocopying, etc., by satellite for more than past 3 decades, systematically harassed and in poverty and neutralised and robbed of his work at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, robbed of crores in his money and property in India by C.I.A.-RAW, forced back into exile in the U.S., all with full cooperation and participation of India's RAW and India's C.I.A.-RAW-controlled prime ministers, politicians and media -- to keep India poor, weak and enslaved" and how this means the nuclear destruction of New Delhi and then the coast-to-coast destruction of the United States. I am India's expert in strategic defence, the father of India's strategic program and the world's greatest scientist and in my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.', which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title, I have written about the chamar-rajya in Uttar Pradesh but as I have also shown, at present India is under white rule and Indians are the Americans' slaves. If India is to survive, this must end. Manu has shown the way: the votes of two, three or four shudras should equal one upper caste vote. This will also end the rule of the Untouchable white woman over India as its empress. Americans did not give women the vote until recently. Manu also shows the way regarding women's vote. I have shown in my blog and recent press releases that "I am India's sovereign". Acknowledgment of this is a better alternative -- in fact, a must if India is to survive. Satish Chandra


    by Satish Chandra (not verified) on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 10:50pm

    Slightly off-topic, Satish.


    by acanuck on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 11:45pm

    I think he nailed it. 


    by quinn esq on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 12:58am

    Partial credit for leading off with "Egypt," ..?


    by kgb999 on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 2:38am

    It seems like they are a full week behind the curve. This is the kind of action that they could have *maybe* pulled off instead of sending goons to beat the crap out of everyone last week.

    I know so little about Egypt though, I'm clueless how to read the situation. Everyone was talking about that military council - which is meeting "regularly" now (without Mubarak or Suleiman). Keeping their positions - both in Egyptian society and in the global community - must be more attractive to them than, what? Firing on tens of thousands of Egyptians for Mubarak? It seems like Egypt certainly has as much power to crush the uprising as China did in Tienanmen, but that seems the be the only thing that is the same. Wouldn't their self-interest totally be in pushing those two aside? I wonder if they were as surprised as the administration is reported to have been.

    I sure hope tomorrow doesn't turn seriously violent. I don't know Egypt ... but those people sure didn't look like they were backing down; and there were an awful lot more of them out there than were at the start of all this. But isn't this a pretty cool image?

    Odd to be hoping for a military coup.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 2:54am

    Egypt has been ruled my the military or rather the higher echelon of the military since the overthrow of the monarchy in the early 1950s and the establishment of Egypt as a sovereign state. The second president of Egypt was Abdel Nasser followed by Sadat and now Mubarak. All ex-military.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser


    by cmaukonen on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 11:13am

    In hindsight, those two speeches were the best thing that could possibly have happened.

    The U.S. had signaled it could live with a transition government overseen by Suleiman, and the danger was that he and Mubarak could pull off a delegation of powers that would essentially leave the regime in power, with the opposition negotiating for whatever crumbs the various "reform" commissions would put on the table.

    It might have worked, but it would have required at least a pretense of humility, of apology, of transparency, of accepting the will of the people as paramount. Neither of those bozos had it in him to deliver that kind of speech. Once an autocrat, always an autocrat.

    The three communiques the military supreme council has issued so far are a bit short on specifics, but they've struck the right tone. An early end to the emergency law that's been in place 30 years will be a good test of the army's sincerity.

    I picked this gem out of the Globe and Mail:

    (Former Israeli defense minister Binyamin) Ben-Eliezer said earlier Friday that he spoke with Mr. Mubarak just hours before the Egyptian president's speech late Thursday in which he refused to step down. ... Mr. Ben-Eliezer said: “He knew that this was it, that this was the end of the road.”

    “He was looking for only one thing – give me an honourable way out. Let me leave in an honourable fashion,” Mr. Ben-Eliezer told Israel's Army Radio.

    Then, his arrogance (honed over three decades) betrayed him, and he botched the one speech that could have given him the honorable exit he craved. Poetic justice.


    by acanuck on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 2:53pm

    Since the WH was being criticized for not doing enough because Mubarak wasn't stepping down, shouldn't they now be getting some praise since he has resigned?


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 3:52pm

    Indeed, I applaud Obama for the speech he gave this afternoon to mark the historic events in Egypt. He seemed to be genuinely moved in appreciation of what has been accomplished here through nonviolent protest.

    Democracy now has a toehold in the Mideast in a way we have not seen in my lifetime, if ever. It's quite humbling and presents a real challenge as we move into a new era. The Egyptian people have inspired confidence in their embrace of nonviolence and a reliance upon democracy. I hope America and the rest of the powers that have so diligently denied self-determination of peoples throughout the world in a cynical effort to promote their own imperialist "self-interests" take a lesson.

    The story ain't over in Egypt, but a game-changer of a new chapter has been written in Tahrir Square. I applaud Obama for standing today in support of the Egyptian people. But I remain vigilant that he - and the rest of the western powers that promoted Mubarak and other Mideast despots in the first place - have at last embraced the principles of democracy that we often talk about, but rarely afford to others. The Egyptian people have shown that they deserve nothing less.


    by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 4:29pm

    Praise may be a bit strong; I think the people who stood their ground in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and the tiny oasis town of Kharga are the ones who decided this issue. I do give the White House credit for having decided early on which side of history was the right one, even if they wavered at times over how forcefully to back the revolution.

    kgb talks above about Mubarak and Suleiman being consistently a full week behind the curve. Quite right, and the White House was usually 16-24 hours late, "nudging" Mubarak when he needed a firm push. And for God's sake, sending as a "special envoy" an ex-ambassador who works for a company that actually lobbies for the Egyptian regime (and whose comments they later had to disavow)! Amateurish. They'd decided Mubarak had to go days before they told him so to his face (if they ever did).

    Obama's 6-minute remarks an hour and a half ago were, I'm sure, sincere and well-received in Egypt (where they were broadcast live). And he struck the right tone by not seeking any credit for his own role. What the U.S. needs to do now is keep up pressure on the military supreme council to carry out the credible democratic transition they have promised. The Egyptian people will also expect solid results, but they will lose leverage once Tahrir Square empties. So the U.S. can and must continue to play an important role.

    In passing, CNN has been stellar throughout this crisis. Anderson Cooper, in particular, seemed to change in the wake of his experience in Cairo, calling out the regime's "lies" for what they were. Even Fouad Ajami, whom I've often found wishy-washy, found and expressed his inner passion for freedom and human rights.

    Look, the White House comes out of this looking as good as it possibly good. I'm not quite prepared to write off the decades of support the U.S. gave to what it knew to be a brutal tyranny. Or the rendition of people to be tortured, in ways even American torturers wouldn't stoop to. Or the civil-rights abuses (including "disappearances") they turned a blind eye to.

    But, as Obama once said, let's look forward. It's a bright new day in the Middle East. The world is better for it. Praise all around!


    by acanuck on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 4:31pm

    The Egyptian military pushed out Mubarek to protect themselves and their own legitimacy, they did not want to continue to be the lethal enforcers of a obsolete corrupt dictator's regime. 

    The military's position as the most powerful actors in Egypt is as yet unchanged. The next big challenge will be to create a government, president and parliament, which control the military/police and not the other way around, and who are freely elected by the people.


    by NCD on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 5:04pm

    Quite right. And likewise, since Mubarak was being criticized for not doing enough because he himself wasn't stepping down, Mubarak also should now be getting some praise since he has resigned.

    Actually the true heroes of this story, in my book: Obama and Mubarak. And their thugs who stopped the slaughter after killing only a few hundred. They deserve a medal. or something.

     


    by Obey on Fri, 02/11/2011 - 7:31pm