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

    American Strategists would have us inherit the winds that blow in Cairo

    By SleepinJeezus on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 7:13pm |

    I haven't seen any TV in a week, and have kept up with developments in Cairo via newspaper headlines and newscasts. Admittedly, this presented for me a "story among other news stories" kind of perspective on the matter.

    Then, I finally got a chance to listen to the DemocracyNow! live podcasts from Cairo (through yesterday), and followed that with Maddow/Engel/Williams MSNBC "live" reporting from Wed. night. I listened as I drove through the night. It was mesmerizing!

    I do not remember being so emotionally moved by any event in recent history. I have been aware of just how repressive the Mubarak Regime has been throughout the years. I long ago identified Mubarak as a convenient tool of our cynically considered foreign policy, another in a long list of strategically placed dictators in the mold of the Pahlavis, Saddam, the Sauds, etc., who would (will) eventually implode with potentially disastrous results. (i.e. see Iran, and the reactionary rise of an anti-Western theocracy to replace "our guy.") And so I was dumbfounded at the absolute courage exhibited by such massive numbers of Egyptians, all coming together to express their defiant refusal to tolerate the abuse of their government any longer, all while expressing a legitimate understanding of - and hope for! - a nuanced and reasoned democracy.

    I especially recall one interview with a man in the Square who, in excellent English heavy with accent, told of his fears about what might happen in the days ahead. The fear was palpable in his voice, but when asked about the possibility that this might - just might! - lead to the overthrow of Mubarak and a democratically elected government, he nearly burst into tears. "Oh!" he exclaimed. "To get the vote? To choose our own government? In Egypt? That would be paradise!"

    My heart was full. I couldn't help smiling broadly, even as tears welled in my eyes.

    And I grew remarkably angry as the thugs showed up to wreak violence upon the throngs of peaceful protestors. As Maddow so forcefully pointed out in her opening commentary, Mubarak had telegraphed that this would happen, leaving little doubt that this was orchestrated as his response to the demands that he step aside peacefully. With his control of the media and therefore the message heard by common Egyptians, Mubarak was showing a remarkable ability to clamp a death-grip on his countrymen - presumably with no other purpose than to drag as many with him into the grave that most assuredly awaits such a despot who chooses hubris over humility; chooses personal power over the hopeful aspirations of millions for self-determination; and who would prefer the destruction of society itself over calling it a day and retiring in exile in a luxurious circumstance that far exceeds anything he otherwise deserves.

    In all of this I was reminded of The Bridge at Andau, the book authored by James Michener. It is an account of the Hungarian Revolt in 1956, told in personal stories shared about the experience by many of the participants who rose up against the Soviet-backed government and the incredibly diabolical AVO (secret police) that held abject control over the people of Hungary. The thousands of students (most were young people in their twenties and thirties) who rose up against this repressive regime had two principles that drove them:

    1.) They felt they had nothing left to lose. Death was seemingly deemed to be a preferable circumstance than a life lived under the constant fear of a visit from the AVO for the most mundane "crimes against the State"; and

    2.) They held a reasoned belief that if they would only fight long enough and with enough ferocity, the Western Powers would be compelled to come to their aid. Surely, the U.S. and other champions of Democracy would not let their courageous and admittedly quixotic assault on this repressive and horribly immoral  government go down without an attempt to intervene on their behalf. They KNEW they had the moral high ground, and they had such faith in the righteous power of the Western democracies that they were certain that these other countries would not simply stand by and watch them be murdered in the streets and be chased and captured and tortured and slaughtered by the State. Surely, they could count on these beneficent democracies to intervene and help finish what they started.

    History shows that these students were probably right on the first principle. But they could not have been more mistaken about the second. The whole revolt was eventually squashed by a massive military response from the Soviets themselves that was as brutally realized as any such exercise in history. The peoples of Hungary were slaughtered in the streets. Many were subsequently hunted down like vermin destined for extermination - but only after the most horrific acts of torture and terror could be exacted upon them. And the Western Powers turned a blind eye to it all.

    I was a young man - a child, really - when I first read this account by Michener in the mid-sixties. It had a remarkable impact on me. Never again was I able to assume the beneficence of my country in all matters related to our foreign policy. In Budapest, I saw how we had been tested in regards to the extent to which we would honor our commitment to Liberty and Democracy and even to humanity itself. And I saw we had pulled up horrifyingly short in all categories that mattered, choosing instead to accept such oppression of a populace as falling within the purview of a legitimate "sovereign government." Governments were inherently legitimate, regardless of their provenance. Even the Western Democracies honored this conceit, letting people (and any notion of "democracy") be damned, if necessary.

    In subsequent years, we have seen the U.S. and other nations double-down on assigning legitimacy to governments, regardless of how ruthless they are in the treatment of their peoples or the manner by which they were installed into power over others. Indeed, think tanks and university degree programs in "diplomacy" have sprung up to devise the best strategic approaches to adopt in actually installing governments of our own choosing and providing them the means to rule authoritatively - not in the furtherance of democracy - but rather to leverage the power of one nation over another country or region. Imperialistic "Spheres of Influence" are the coin of the diplomatic realm, not the promotion of self-determination that serves as the fundamental basis for governance outlined in our own Declaration of Independence.

    Realpolitick is the name of the game, and we have the CIA and the State Department in place as required to advance this mad pursuit of seeking "political advantage" in choosing what governments shall reign over others throughout the world. In squelching democracy in other nations in favor of more "stable" governments, we are forever destined to ultimate failure when the basic human thirst for self-determination becomes so powerfully felt that people rise up and rebel, come what may.

    We now see the people gathering by the hundreds of thousands in Cairo in search of a new beginning. And we hear the State Department and the think tank experts and the other talking heads all expressing fear over where it all may lead. They are right to be concerned. But it isn't the inexorable move toward democracy that serves as the basis of their fear. No, it is instead the fear of the consequences they must now confront for having been complicit in denying them democracy all these years in favor of a "friendlier, more 'stable'" despotic regime. Paybacks are a bitch, and these "strategic thinkers" are all too well aware of what is owed to them in exchange for their efforts on behalf of Mubarak and the rest of their favored "stable governments."

    Take your medicine, Hillary and Barack. Quit trying to inherit the winds that now blow across the Middle East, for they can only refresh those peoples who are there on the ground looking to fill their sails and set off into a future of their own choosing.

    Whatever consequences we must face following our years-long pursuit of our own "national interests" at the expense of the peoples of the Middle East are unavoidable. At best, we can do nothing but take a lesson about the destined failure of strategic policies that seek to oppress human nature. And in the end, we would do well to take a sobering lesson that leads us to once again recognize certain inviolate realities, such as:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.  

    I greatly admire the courage shown by the people of Egypt in confronting such powerful forces allayed against them. And I appreciate the fear they most surely feel as they cannot begin to know what tomorrow will bring. But I will not pretend to force upon these Egyptian patriots any notion that I - nor my President or Secretary of State! - possess answers to their present dilemma that precludes the need for them to act upon and realize pursuit of their own self-determination in their own choice of governance.

    Godspeed, people of Egypt! Soldarnosz!

     

    Comments

    "To get the vote? To choose our own government? In Egypt? That would be paradise!"

     

    And here, we just piss it away like it never cost anyone a fuckin' thing to get it for us.  It should not be possible for the Koch brothers to walk the streets without dodging rotten eggs, for Mitch McConnell to show his smug face in public, for Prez to run one more bait 'n switch without being covered in the irrepressible vomit of his fellow citizens.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/04/2011 - 8:58pm

    You've expressed this better than Soros, Jeezus:

    http://onceuponaparadigm.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/a-message-from-george-...

    But he didn't quite beat up Hillary and Barack as much.  Wink


    by LisB on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:26am

    Soros' defense of a new focus on Mideast policy (and foreign policy overall) that centers upon the rights of people to determine their own governance in free and fair elections is commendable.

    And it is not my intent to "beat up" Hillary and Barack. I mention them only because they are the present occupants of the "House of Horrors" that is our Department of State and the repository of our foreign policy.

    We gotta get it right this time, learning at last from our past mistakes made in promoting Imperialism in place of our Founding Principles as delineated in our own Declaration of Independence.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:40am

    Ah, but that "House of Horrors" was freely elected by you and me.  Don't forget that.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:43am

    And with what offered as an alternative? You seem to make well the case for the introduction of a little more democracy within our very own house. I absolutely agree!


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:58am

    I agree we could move more left, yes.  But the alternative at the time was...well, a bad alternative.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:00am

    Yeah. We kind of messed up. In our defense ... we had a seemingly senile old guy teamed up with the Moose Queen as an alternative. Oh yeah. And Barr, McKinney and Nader ... sort of (if you count being shut out of every debate and denied news coverage). We clearly need a better system for winnowing down the choices.


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:36am

    In terms of our foreign policy, there is very little difference between what we would see out of a McCain Administration or an Obama Administration  - or anyone else, for that matter, capable of attracting enough campaign contributions from the MIC to win a Presidential election. (I think there's a correlation there, no?)

    The Dem foreign policy doesn't stray too far from what you would read being promoted by the neo-cons. The "Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dum" argument about the homogenization of our politics that drives so many DLC-types crazy is made most apparent in the way we choose to engage the world. There simply haven't been any substantial alternatives offered.

    That is the main point of my blog post. Imagine, if you will, that we were presently confronted with a situation where it was possible for Mubarak to have lasted thirty years in power without our support. Imagine as well, that in the meantime we had actually built credibility as a nation who exported our own revolution; that we had been actively engaged in promoting democracy throughout the world as the focus of our foreign policy rather than propping up dictators who will "support our national interests." Imagine the position we would be in now. We could quite credibly be standing as Americans shoulder to shoulder with these courageous people in Liberation Square in Cairo, telling Mubarak to take a hike and let Freedom ring.

    Instead, we have a State Department (and all these "experts") concerned that we are about to reap what we have sown in seeing a democratic movement quite rightly identify us - the Americans - as the "enemy" of self-determination. And their prescription? More interference in the internal affairs of Egypt with a hope that we can "install a stable and friendly government," let democracy be damned.

    As so poignantly asked in Dylan's song, "When will we ever learn?"

    We can do better. We MUST do better than this.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:44am

    I think that if there were a McCain/Palin administration [did I just type that?] we would be at war with Iran by now.

    by CVille Dem on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:37pm

    And what direction are we headed in under our present policies? That would be my point, that we really aren't charting a different course but instead maybe just postponing the inevitable consequence of our own pursuit of Imperialism over reasoned policies that actually support and promote self-determination.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:09pm

    As it begins to look like the U.S. retainas some leverage to make the Mubarak regime see reason, the voices of national self-interest are beginning to mutter. Sure, they say, we want to see a democratic Egypt, but isn't there some way to exclude the Muslim Brotherhood from that process? And I just heard some think-tank expert saying an end to political repression was fine, but what Egypt really needs is job-creating economic liberalism. Folks, could we just let the Egyptians recover the dignity we've helped deprive them of for three decades before we start telling them what they want? Again? We owe them at least that.

    When you talk of the American govt's Realpolitik, Sleepin, I think of Pol Pot. In just three years in power, his Khmer Rouge psychopaths murdered one-quarter of his own country's population. Finally, thankfully, his communist Vietnamese neighbors invaded and overthrew him. Cambodians rejoiced, but the U.S. continued to recognize him as the legitimate head of state for nearly two decades. Killing fields? What killing fields?

    Jimmy Carter gets no credit for it -- in fact, it's seen as his weakness -- but he is the one U.S. president in modern times to have actually applied moral criteria to U.S. foreign policy. For example, by taking to task "allies" who raped and murdered American nuns and gunned down Salvadoran archbishops as they celebrated mass. American voters showed they weren't comfortable with official admissions of complicity in murder, so the experiment hasn't been repeated since. But Carter was right.

    You cite the impact the Hungarian Revolution had on you as a child. I had just turned 13 when it occurred, and it was my awakening to the world of international politics, conflict and diplomacy. I followed the story in the newspaper, of course. But my family subscribed to an afternoon paper, and because of the time difference with Europe, what I read was always 36 to 48 hours out of date. We didn't yet have one of those newfangled television sets, and I didn't have a radio in my bedroom.

    Fortunately, I had an understanding mother. For well over a week, I slept on the living-room floor next to our massive mahogany radio console, tuned at low volume to a station broadcasting live from Budapest. My hopes rose and fell with those of the Hungarian people. I learned the names of Hungarian leaders, and their changing policies, statements, and actions. I did the same for those in the West, the Soviets, their Bloc allies. And then -- in the middle of all this -- war broke out in the Middle East. More names, more conflict, more to try (and often fail) to absorb and understand.

    I was crushed when the Hungarian freedom fighters were crushed. I was just a kid, so I'd been powerless to help them, but I had gained something: knowledge that the world was not the stable, peaceful place I'd imagined, but also that it was not just chaos. The world posed moral questions, and we all had a duty to answer them. I had no evidence, but I had a conviction, that if we all asked ourselves those moral questions, and answered honestly, the world would change, incrementally, for the better.

    Half a century later, that remains my conviction. Of course, I still have no evidence.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:34am

    You inspire a dark thought here in your recollection of the Hungarian Uprising as a watershed moment for you and your development of a "civic conscience."

    Is it possible that the events that occurred in Budapest were such an anomalie at the time? That they were sufficiently outrageous for the times to wrest our attention to them, but that these same atrocities would only be passively recognized today due to their lack of novelty? You mention Pol Pot. And El Salvador. I think of Guatemala. And of Haiti - right off our shores - under the rule of Baby Doc.

    The present-day examples are really too numerous to mention of atrocities committed by governments against their own people in a fashion that are equally as alarming and horrific as the slaughter in Hungary. Yet, they become another lede in the evening news, with the requisite talking heads discussing the impact these "situations" might have upon our "national interests," nothing else.

    What have we become?


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:55am

    Calloused?


    by Resistance on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:18am

    It appears our state department's big plan is to try and replace Mubarak with the guy who has been running their (and OUR) torture chambers.

    Kind of hard not to be after awhile, no?


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:39am

    I suspect that the atrocities governments commit against their subjects haven't really increased, just our ability to document and speedily communicate them. The Hungarian Revolution caught our notice as a spark of hope in the fairly static Cold War standoff, but remember it had been just over a decade since the Nazi nightmare had ended. Both victors and vanquished were militarily exhausted, and most of the atrocities any European could conceive of had already been committed.

    Four or five years later, it was a different story: Latin America and Southeast Asia were erupting, the Middle East was at war again, Africa was throwing off its shackles. The turmoil hasn't subsided since, but not even the most egregious cases of internal violence -- Yugoslavia, Sudan, Rwanda -- have engaged the American public. Egypt seems to be catching people's consciences, though, because it's impossible to ignore the direct role the United States had in creating the problem.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:35am

    Great analysis. acanuck.

    I think I would restate your last sentence, however, to strengthen its premise. I think the reason this revolt "catches our consciences" is because the consequence of having our "chickens come home to roost" in this instance are potentially staggering. People readily recognize the equivalence between what is happening here and the Iranian revolution that toppled the Shah. The thought of an Iranian-style theocracy being installed in place of Mubarak is quite frightening, indeed!

    But cynically promoting the installation of Soeliman as the answer to the Egyptians thirst for self-determination is destined to fail, and fail miserably. It in fact, IMO, almost ensures a move to a more radical Islamist Fundamentalism as a natural response to our own continuing exercise of Western Imperialism.

    Instead, imagine Obama standing side-by-side with Egyptians like Dr. Nawal El Saadawi to announce that we have learned from our past mistakes; that the role of the United States government in the matter of our relationship to the Egyptian people is redefined to listen to what is being said in Liberation Square, and to commit our resources only so far as to make them available at the direction of a steering committee made up of Egyptians to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections to be held at the earliest opportunity.

    The people of Egypt who have rallied against Mubarak have shown an amazing reluctance to engage in the anti-imperialist rhetoric that is due them as a result of our past interference. I believe it presents a limited opportunity at present to step forward boldly and credibly to make amends by legitimately promoting this revolution toward democracy. We haven't yet screwed things up so completely with our interference in Egyptian affairs to suffer a reactionary Islamist revolution as a foregone conclusion here. So - just this once - let's wave the white flag of surrender on our imperialist intentions toward Egypt and embrace democracy as the way to move forward in pursuit of peace and sanity in the Middle East.

    God knows, there isn't much offered to us by way of a reasoned alternative.  


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:20pm

    Unlike the cold war where we had a player in the game (NATO) during the Hungarian Revolt, today in Egypt, we have no player in the game and no stake in the outcome. And the Middle East is keenly aware the west has vested interest in who runs their governments. So its best to let them decide for themselves in what direct they wish to move and let them decide how much blood and carnage is necessary to make that transition. Better to let Egypt burn on its own and wait to see if a phoenix rises from the ashes than to suggest or nudge them in a direction not of their choosing. But most of all, we need to back off and let them make their own decisions. The mere presence of diplomats engaging in discussions with the power moguls and news teams from all over the globe, turns their revolution into a political circus for global entertainment that may force a turn of events the public might not expect or want. They will figure it out for themselves if left to their own devices so the rest of us need to go back to what we were doing before and wait for them to announce their decision.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:42am

    I remember the Hungarian uprising, but vaguely as it happened.  I had to read about it later to get the full impact of what had happened when the world chose not to come to their aid. 

    I remember at the time it was happening feeling such panic when it became clear they were going to have to fight it out on their own, but because I was 19 and pregnant at the time, not yet of voting age and living in sunny southern California where my husband was happily ensconced in the newly burgeoning aerospace industry, I'm only remembering it in fits and starts and not as something that took possession of my days.

    When I can't understand today why more people don't get involved in such pressing issues and throw themselves whole skin into causes, I try to remember myself when I was young.  Causes were romantic and fleeting.  My days were filled with daily things and nothing intruded that I myself didn't allow in.  When stories and images became too painful, I could blot them out with Rogers and Hammerstein or movie magazines.  I was in the midst of trying to create a safe and happy haven for my new family, and because I was 19 and living in America in the 1950s, I thought that was what life was all about.

    I remember Poland and Lech Walesa and Solidarnocz in the 1980s much better.  Because of Walter Reuther and Jack Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement and Viet Nam I was now inclined to follow more closely the political and social events, and that event was stunning.  It was the first successful uprising against a communist regime in my lifetime, and the revolutionaries were union laborers lead by one of their own.  They should have had no chance at all, but they did it (with world support but no interference), and while some might question whether it is still working, Poland has not fallen to the Communists again.

    I agree that we must stop thinking we know best for the countries of the world.  We don't.  We embarrass ourselves by pretending we do when we can't even solve our own domestic problems.  But embarrassment is the least of it.  We're bankrupting ourselves by throwing money at foreign interests on the off-chance that there's a profit in it for us somewhere.

    We've become what we've spent our entire lives fighting against. 


    by Ramona on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:13am

    Fine sentiments, Sleepin. I have a bad feeling about it all. With Clinton and Biden - Mubarak's BFFs - running point on the diplomacy front and Gates - Suleiman's shadowy spy buddy - playing puppetmaster in the background, the US is still trying to prop up the dictatorship - just perhaps seeking to fashion something a bit kinder and gentler. If they keep it up, it is going to backfire horribly as the more jihadist elements of the Brotherhood will be proven right: the foreign powers won't allow a peaceful overthrow of the regime, and they're going to have to get all Khomeini'd up...

    Obama himself seems totally at sea.

    If the US administration can bring themselves to drop Suleiman, that will be provide some glimmer of hope. Meantime, I can't work up much of a feeling of joy or triumph. The US policy for now is just an exercise in applied ill-will and ignorance.


    by Obey on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:04am

    I definitely share your concerns, obey. I think that's what makes this drama so riveting. I feel nearly a full range of emotions at play here. I am inspired by the courage and the tenacity of the people of Egypt who have stood so strongly against Mubarak and his legacy of corruption and intimidation.

    But I also fear the possibility of a reactionary government stepping into the vacuum. Inasmuch as the feared "reaction" would be against the kind of interference we've engaged in the past, I believe the antidote cannot be for us to engage in additional interference at present. At some point, we have to quit doing those things that continually swing around to bite us in the ass.

    The situation in Egypt has the potential to be sufficiently transformative to reset the whole balance of power away from militant detente in the Middle East toward a more reasoned reliance upon democracy that serves all interests. It's an incredible challenge, but necessary to be realized if we are ever to know peace in this region.

    How confident am I that we have the will and the intellect and the political integrity of principles to pull it all off? Alas, here is where my cynicism overcomes me and I find myself with deep-seated fears that we will instead offer more of the same "puppetry" that is destined to backfire once again into a continuing cycle of chaos and ruin and war and hatred.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:14pm

    Oh, the cycle continues...

    Here's cynicism:  Remember those spent teargas canisters stamped "Made in USA?"  Could a more poigniant metaphor be invented?  Billions of dollars in aid from the U.S., almost half of it borrowed incidentally, handed over to Mubarak to buy teargas and whatever other weapons from U.S. suppliers.  A perfect loop of military industrial corporate welfare.  Haliburton alone has made billions over the past decade in Egypt. 

    Who cares which side we here in the US support with regard to uprisings abroad.  Until you and me and the rest of our neighbors take the hint and gather in our own town square, so to speak, to defeat the fascists here...  New slogan:  we have to fight them here so they don't have to fight them over there. 


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:00pm

    Regrettably, kyle, I have to concur.

    We have to fight them here so we don't have to fight them over there.

    Alas, I can't imagine a more profoundly apt and concise statement of just how screwed we really are in realizing a legitimate democracy, here or abroad.

    Call me a sucker for believing in the audacity of hope. Oh, wait... Even THAT concept has already been compromised as well, eh?

    Yup! We're screwed! ;O)


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:03pm

    Oh, i don't know.  Everyday at noon here in Olympia, Washington as many as 7 grandparenty types line up on the main street with signs.  They've been doin' it for years.  I honk and wave when I pass them.   Sometimes I even give 'em the old peace sign from the comfort of my foreign car.  It's a start.  What's the expression?  It takes an acorn to grow an oak tree?


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:45pm

    Grow an oak tree? In consideration of the MIC, I'd suggest that it takes one helluva' buzz saw to bring one down. ;O)


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 2:49pm

    I'm confused, and I haven't even started drinking yet (although it is noon now here on the left coast).  I think metaphors are being mixed (along with the Jameson and sweet Vermouth.  Like I said, past noon and all).

    But seriously, I've had it.  Meet me on the corner on Mayday, or sooner perhaps.  Bring a sign if it pleases.  What's the expression?  "Let's roll."


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:10pm

    What ever happens Mubarek and his family should be able to keep their money!

    It's theirs not the governments.

    All $40-$70 billion of it, as has been reported. His name, curiously, does not appear on Forbes list of billionaires (US backed Israel friendly dictators excluded by Forbes?). $70 billion would make Mubarek the richest man in the world.

    Do they have an estate tax in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or do those governments have the GOP conviction that taxing the rich only suppresses innovation, initiative and freedoms, while stealing hard earned and deserved financial compensation that deserves to be perpetuated forever, generation to generation?


    by NCD on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:11am

    Quite right, NCD. I'm sure the family simply made wise investments over the past three decades that have brought them returns of a billion or so per year. Nothing to do with ongoing privatization of state enterprises. Mubarak's just worried about the "chaos" that might ensue if he leaves prematurely and his opponents get a chance to look at the books.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:36pm

    Gamal Mubarak, BTW, oversaw and led much of that privatization. Coincidentally.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:21pm

     wise investments over the past three decades

     

    That, and, every day both Gamal and his father packed their lunches from home, and instead of squandering money at the Cheops Cafeteria and Latte Bar, they prudently locked away their foregone extravagance in a little tin box.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:57pm

    ...yeah, packing his lunch probably saved Mubarek billions, totally agree, lots of billionaires eat PBJ, although it hasn't saved that much for me over the years.


    by NCD on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:59pm

    Jolly is neglecting to mention that the Mubaraks would conscientiously walk to work, or at least walk to the limos that took them to work, saving Egyptian taxpayers the burden of physically carrying them to work, as was the practice with their predecessors in office.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:45pm

    More importantly, they sequestered the tips that each of the four litter bearers demanded, claiming that the rising price of the oil they used to achieve their photogenic sheen was nearly breaking the bank.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:09pm

    Never again was I able to assume the beneficence of my country in all matters related to our foreign policy.

    And it really hit me decades ago that our President was the guy who won WII and few people were as familiar with the Ruskies than Ike.

    If he was going to let it slide, what could we expect from the rest of our Chief Executives?


    by Richard Day on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:43pm

    It looks like the Obama administration decided to sell out the Tahrir square movement today, for the sake of stability.  They are tilting back toward Mubarak, and will back him up when he has the Army shut down the protests.

    Of course, most Americans will be watching the Super Bowl.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:45pm

    I'm afraid you're right, Dan. Commitment to democracy didn't last long, did it?


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:50pm

    I'm afraid you're right, Dan. Commitment to democracy didn't last long, did it?


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:50pm

    It was worth saying twice.


    by acanuck on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:51pm

    I didn't realize how prescient I was in making the connection between this and the Hungarian Revolt in 1956. I have the same bitter taste of betrayal in my mouth right now that I knew then, desperately ashamed to be an American. When will they ever learn?

    I'll be interested to see how the Obama apologists care to spin this one. There is simply no excuse for it, and I fear the blood of REAL patriots will flow as a result. And we shall reap what we sow.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:00pm

    Nicely done Hey Zeus.


    by miguelitoh2o on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:02pm

    Two pieces you might be interested in.  First, a Newser piece on the three lobbyists for Egypt who are (among other things) incontrol of the messaging of the revolution in D.C. and out to the world through the media.  (Hint: it's working well, esp. in terms of advancing the Muslim Brotherhood boogey-man fears).  You will recognize some names, sadly.  The Sunlight Foundation details how many Congressional Critters are in for pieces of the Egyptian Pie, reclaiming our tax dollars for their districts.  (Sorry; too pressed for time to grab the link)

    This bit makes a person's stomach hurt, coupled with the fact that the Obama administration has cut in half aid to organizations there working to spur democracy:

    "Egypt's lobbyists also played a backstage role in the defeat of a nonbinding Senate resolution last fall that would have called for "supporting democracy, human rights and civil liberties in Egypt." Introduced last July after the Egyptian government cracked down hard on internal dissent, the resolution sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., gathered bipartisan support from more than a dozen colleagues.

    But the resolution quickly ran into a lobbying counteroffensive. Federal lobbying documents detail at least a dozen contacts between Podesta's lobbying outfit, the Podesta Group Inc., and legislators in August and September. Missi Tessier, a spokeswoman for the Podesta Group, deferred to Egypt's embassy in Washington, which did not reply to an e-mail request for comment."

    http://www.newser.com/article/d9l564n80/the-influence-game-trio-of-veteran-lobbyists-guide-egypt-government-interests-in-washington.html

    This second is an April 2009 piece by Jack Shenker at the Guardian, writing on a report from GAFI, the Egyptian govt. investment authority, proving that the only people who benefited from the new and improved economy were the uber-wealthy elites.

    "Since 1991, the year Egypt yoked itself to an IMF structural adjustment programme and embarked on a series of wide-ranging economic reforms, the country has been something of a poster child for neoliberal economists who point to its remarkable levels of annual GDP growth as proof that "Washington consensus" blueprints for the developing world can work. Coming on the back of an economic crisis precipitated partly by profligate government spending on arms sales (subsidised by US aid), the regime of President Hosni Mubarak signed up to an IMF loan that was conditional on economic liberalisation. Those conditions – relaxed price controls, reduced subsidies, an opening up of trade – were met with gleeful abandon.

    Ever since, the country has been subject to successive waves of neoliberal reform. In 1996 a huge privatisation drive kicked off – resulting in sham sales to public banks and regime cronies, a rapid deterioration of working conditions and a wave of strikes so powerful that one analyst labelled it the largest social movement seen in the Middle East in half a century."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/egypt-imf

    Good diary, Jeezus.  Thanks for writing it.  There are a million ways this can go wrong, and some of them seem to be afoot this morning, as some opposition groups are in fact meeting with Suleiman.  If they make a deal with that devil, can they dump him later?  Might depend on the Army.  At least Hillary, Obama, and Gates love his torturing ass.

    But by God and Allah, they are saying No More!  Enough!


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:51am

    From the NYT (subscription required):

    CAIRO — The United States and leading European nations on Saturday threw their weight behind Egypt’s vice president, Omar Suleiman, backing his attempt to defuse a popular uprising without immediately removing President Hosni Mubarak from power.

    Messaging is everything, and this lede pretty much says it all. I'm certain the message isn't lost on anyone in Liberty Square, nor in the cities, town squares, and villages scattered throughout the Mideast.

    You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from here, although these most assuredly emanate only from those wearing tailored suits or uniforms with epaulets on their shoulders as the U.S. and its western allies serve notice that we're still in business, making the world safe for democracy illegitimate despots. For those who suffer under these governments installed to control them, I'm pretty sure the message is probably just as enthusiastically received (albeit colored in a more negative light.)

    Just in case the message wasn't made clear enough, the NYT article recounts just how effectively engaged Obama and our State Department have been on behalf of resolving the legitimate concerns of the Egyptian people:

    ...the formal endorsement came as Mr. Suleiman appeared to reject the protesters’ main demands, including the immediate resignation of Mr. Mubarak and the dismantling of a political system built around one-party rule, according to leaders of a small, officially authorized opposition party who spoke with Mr. Suleiman on Saturday.

    Nor has Mr. Suleiman, a former general, former intelligence chief and Mr. Mubarak’s longtime confidant, yet reached out to the leaders designated by the protesters to negotiate with the government, opposition groups said.

    Instead of loosening its grip, the existing government appeared to be consolidating its power: The prime minister said police forces were returning to the streets, and an army general urged protesters to scale back their occupation of Tahrir Square.

    Juan Cole has written a remarkable essay (h/t to stardust) outlining just how effectively the tail has wagged the dog in terms of our Mideast policy. In his indictment of our willingness "to lie down and serve as doormats for America’s supposed allies in the Middle East," Cole makes the case that we gain little more than humiliation for our efforts at "protecting our interests" throughout the region. Furthermore, he decries the message it presents to those who really matter - the hundreds of millions of people who are affected by our inept inability to rein in the abuse of power exercised by these (our) despots:

    Just as Netanyahu takes Washington’s billions but then pisses all over American policy objectives with regard to erecting a Palestinian State Lite, so Mubarak has stuffed tens of billions of dollars from Washington into his government’s pockets but has humiliated and endangered the United States.

    When Netanyahu steals Palestinian property or deprives Gaza Palestinians of their livelihoods, and when Mubarak uses American military aid to crush a popular demonstration, they underline to the peoples of the Middle East that their corrupt and unacceptable situation is underwritten by Washington. That message generates fury at the United States.

    You very aptly point out, stardust, that there is an incredibly powerful lobby now pressed into action to advocate a "return to normalcy and stability" (i.e. essentially the Mubarak regime without Mubarak). Their messaging includes all the well-reasoned excuses why we can't just proceed willy-nilly into chaos and anarchy, but they offer more-of-the-same as the only alternative. They pay lip-service to the grievances voiced by the protestors while offering the status quo as the solution. And these recent developments on the U.S. diplomatic front show that our government is complicit in the peddling of this message. Indeed, the headline for the NYT piece ("West Backs Gradual Egyptian Transition") speaks more about "transitioning" through this rough period to arrive at a more stable status quo ante than actually moving from here into something different.

    How might it be any different? Surely, we can't just accede to the wishes of the demonstrators with a wholesale dismissal of the government, leaving a vacuum into which an even more repressive - and even more uncontrollable! - regime might arise? There are, after all, legitimate "national interests" to be protected here, and the rise of democratic self-determination is not a foregone conclusion of the chaos and anarchy that would ensue if we just topple the present government. The lobbyists and the State Department and the Congresscritters and all the rest of the powerful elite make these arguments, and we are fools if we don't recognize the legitimacy of many of the concerns they express.

    But let's just imagine a different scenario in which these concerns are presented. Let's allow Obama and the State Department their argument, as expressed by Hillary in Munich, that an orderly transition from this despotic regime to a democratically elected government "“...takes some time. There are certain things that have to be done in order to prepare.” Let's even allow Sueliman to assume the role as point man to facilitate the transition with a promise to negotiate with him in good faith. Ultimately, let's allow for all the steps to be taken and concerns to be addressed that are now promoted as the means necessary to "transition" into a solution that meets the demands of the demonstrators for self-determination.

    But let's make these proposals and outline this transition with Obama standing alongside El Baradei, Nour, The Muslim Brotherhood, representatives chosen from among the protestors in Liberation Square, Saardawi, and others who represent those who have been oppressed by this present regime. And let's make it certain that the intention here is to effect a legitimate transition from despotism to a democratic system of governance that genuinely protects and preserves the people's desire for self-determination.

    The people of Egypt have shown considerable restraint in their courageous effort to create a new beginning in Egypt. Their passion and their enthusiasm has (so far!) been tempered by a mostly respectful patience in acknowledgment of the difficulties and realities they confront in forming a new government. In essence, they seem impressed with a need to "get it right" the first time - and they seem to honor the fact (so far!) that the U.S. and its western allies have legitimate interests that need to be protected, and that these interests are not antithetical but indeed SUPPORT their desire for self-governance.

    These people deserve our honor and support. More importantly, perhaps, is our strategic need to be seen as a force for good in the Middle East. Millions of people throughout the region now look toward Cairo asking of us "Which side are they on?" Every opportunity should be undertaken here by Obama and the State Department to be seen standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Egypt, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind who will prevail in the end.

    Alas, the message we are receiving instead is far more ambiguous (at best!), and is in fact quite plainly being interpreted by many as a desperate attempt to salvage the status quo ante. We proceed down that path at our peril, destined for more humiliation as Sueliman & Co. plays us all for suckers once again (just as Mubarak has done before him), only this time with a genuine threat of it all erupting into a regional Islamist-based populist revolt targeting Western Imperialists and their minions as "the enemy."

    "Which side ARE you on, Mr. Obama?"

    Stay tuned. And hope it ain't too late for these dithering fools in Washington to come up with the right answer. I continue holding out such hope if only because the consequences of our government's continuing support of a single-party repressive regime in Egypt are too extremely disastrous to consider for all the ill winds that will blow from Cairo to Riyadh and Islamabad; from Ankara to Sanaa; and all points in between.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:48pm

    Using the Hungarian revolt as a case example and to fully understand what it is that you want our government to do, should the Western powers have rolled in their tanks against the Soviets?  The revolt was definitely one of the sadder episodes in the history of the people rising up against the oppressive regimes.  Taken to Eygpt, aside from turning the money spigot off, what else can we really do outside of regime-change military action that we saw Bush do in Iraq?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:02pm

    I think we cross-posted. See my comment immediately above for "Where to from here?" suggestions. Ultimately, I think we need to make it plain who we support in this effort for a new beginning in Egypt. Standing back in support of Sueliman to orchestrate the transition whilst failing to effectively acknowledge and support any of the other stakeholders as legitimate partners in the process is hardly a recipe for success.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:08pm

    Agreed.  But what is also hardly a recipe for success is tossing a country/nation into a national political election process which has no national political infrastructure in place to accommodate it.  Mubarek and his cronies created this lack of infrastructure, and, thus, benefit in the short term from this condition.  It is unjust in the big scheme of things, but to suddenly thrust the country into coping with something of that magnitude would likely end in disaster.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:17pm

    Again, I agree. Read my comment as I suggested. I deal with the pragmatic realities of having to negotiate with the present regime to facilitate a transition to a new government.

    But we must make certain it is understood to be a transition that leads to a new beginning for the Egyptian people, not just a transition to take us over this rough spot with intent to arrive at a stabilized status quo ante.

    The NYT article (and all indications from Munich and the WH) strongly infers that Obama & Co. are engaged in the latter style of "transition."

    And my remarks support the idea that this would be a horrible mistake on nearly all counts, including the long-range promotion of our legitimate national interests in the Mideast.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:45pm

    I guess I am responding to basic sentiment expressed in this comment: "In subsequent years, we have seen the U.S. and other nations double-down on assigning legitimacy to governments, regardless of how ruthless they are in the treatment of their peoples or the manner by which they were installed into power over others."

    Unless we are willing to go in and physically overthrow an oppressive government, there is little we can do if we want to have some influence within the regime without at some level without providing some legitimacy to the regime.  And on a foreign policy level, the problem the left has is that any leverage we have beyond financial is the threat we could "bomb you back to the stone age."  Beyond those two leverage points, why else would someone even listen to us?  Whatever idealism we had in the global community after WWII is long gone.  The power of our president to effect the conditions on the ground is related to those on the ground believing the US will actually use military force to effect the outcome.  And that is something the left is not willing to embrace.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:46pm

    IMO, what is hardly a recipe for success would be if Clinton/Obama/Gates' insistence that rule by the head of Security and Torture Suleiman are preferable than 'instability'.  There's that word that Mubarak loves so much, and it's always followed by fears that the Muslim Brotherhood figures will take over the government.  Clinton now allows that 'she' will okay including them in tallks with Suleiman.  Feh!  This, after pretending in their public voices that Egyptians should make their own choices.  (Man, the shite that's going on in the backrooms and burning phone lines!  Hope someone leaks those conversations one day.)

    What's unclear is who the Army will back.  The Army has been a force forever in Egypt, and all the leaders have come from their ranks.  Can they like a proviso government by committee until they get their act together?  Do they fear Suleiman?  What pressure is Gates bringing to bear on the Army?  Who has been at these meetings with Suleiman?  El Baradei said today he wasn't even invited to participate, and we know that he's met with plenty of self-identified Elites.

    We can armchair-quarterback it all, and hope that Obama makes it clear that Mubarak's got to go, but since they are backing their favorite Monster, maybe the people will just need to hold out another ten days or so, though practical life must make it hard to think about. 

    Please read Marcy Wheeler; she parses Suleiman's Promises and finds them almost the exact opposite of what's being presented as 'stable' and 'a step forward'.

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/06/claiming-consensus-omar-suleiman-promises-to-hold-protesters-accountable/

    As in, "He's veritably promising to prosecute the protestors, as they are the ones who have caused the security breakdown," and he says he won't lift the emergency orders until the protestors stand down.'  (And more.) 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:36pm

    All I can say is that both you and I do not have to live with the consequences of "instability."  I think the folks in Iraq might have a few words about what is preferable, and how difficult the decision is.  It is similar to someone standing on the sideline telling the family member whether to pull the plug on a child in a unstable, critical medical condition. 

    What you, I, and everyone else needs to be clear is we take a stand on what "HAS TO HAPPEN" is how much suffering are we willing to allow, how many dead bodies in the streets are justifiable, how much trauma is "necessary" to achieve a political goal.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:52pm

    Mubarek: how the family got rich, it's more than those PBJ sandwiches:

    Mubarak, his wife and two sons were able to also accumulate wealth through a number of business partnerships with foreigners, said Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East Politics at Durham University in England. He said Egyptian law requires that foreigners give a local business partner a 51 percent stake in most ventures. (..with apparently little or no risk or investment)

    Aladdin Elaasar, author of "The Last Pharaoh: Mubarak"......"Gamal and Alaa are partners in the biggest trade and industrial companies in Egypt, practically paying nothing," Elaasar wrote in his book of Mubarak's two sons. Elaasar said the sons have shares in Chili's restaurants, Hyundai and Skoda auto dealerships, Vodafone, and several luxury hotel and residential properties.


    by NCD on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:09pm

    You mention the Hungarian revolt of 1956. Actually the U.S. encouraged that revolt in Radio Free Europe broadcasts among other efforts and then abandoned the Hungarian people when they actually did it. I have an older friend who worked on the Hungarian/Austrian border at the time and he told some remarkable stories. But it is a cautionary tale for any of us who would want the U.S. to express any support for the Egyptian protestors/revolutionaries. If the U.S. acts true to type it will abandon them at the critical moment and bring disaster to them. This is the lesson for you and I of the Hungarian affair. As a State Department official said to Deepak Chopra recently, “The U.S. does not have friends. It has interests.” There is an oft-used excuse that the U.S. was restrained from acting in Hungary because of - wait for it - the Suez crisis. And round and round we go.


    by LarryH on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 5:36pm

    I appreciate your perspective on this, and the warning about placing faith in any beneficent intentions of the U.S. being undertaken solely for the benefit of the people of Egypt and our founding principles. Hungary taught me to never again be so naive.

    I would hope, however, to have made the case that a firm and genuine commitment of support for these protestors in this situation redounds to our advantage. And conversely, I argue that our continued efforts to prop up the single-party regime in Egypt with intent to preserve "stability" and "protect our interests" will most assuredly backfire. In this, I look to Iran - not Hungary - to see just how injurious it will be to our national interests to be found once again on the wrong side of history.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 5:49pm

    Of course I do not doubt your good intentions.  But do you really want to encourage the U.S. to become involved in the Egyptian matter, especially in the person of B. Obama who seems to have an appetite for autocratic political power?  If one can imagine President Obama telling Mubarak that he needs to step down because of the abusiveness of his regime, then one can imagine Mubarak replying “Very well.  Now where would you like me to send the people you sent to me to be tortured?”  If the U.S. were a person then the world would probably put a bracelet on its ankle so that it knew where the U.S. was and what it was doing.  Seems to me that WikiLeaks is an effort in this direction that has not at all been well received.


    by LarryH on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:19pm

    I'll drop this in knowing you all are off watching football.  Tongue out  I was thinking about a comment I'd read earlier today that no matter the risks, the people in Egypt and many of us around the world supporting them and the Tunisians either intuit or grasp outright that a successful shrugging off of Pharaonic rule would constitute a body-blow to the global elite and the neo-liberal economics that have created such an underclass recently, and would be a game-changer in terms of Western power and domination.

    Think, too, of the other huge reasons for the US promoting Suleiman: absent the status quo, it would be likely that the regime's decades of war crimes would be exposed, and the US and many Western nations would be implicated.  Hard not to think that documents are being shredded or burned right now.  Congressional leaders have also been complicit, so there aren't too many calling for a complete overthrow and dissolution of Parliament.  ;o)  We'd also find out how our money was laundered, and at the expense of whom.  Anyhoo, I read this piece by Mark Levine, and a bit of hit the mark for me in terms of the huge global change that we are now (possibly) in the midst of:

    "For those who don't understand why President Obama and his European allies are having such a hard time siding with Egypt's forces of democracy, the reason is that the amalgam of social and political forces behind the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt today - and who knows where tomorrow - actually constitute a far greater threat to the "global system" al-Qa'eda has pledged to destroy than the jihadis roaming the badlands of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen.

    Mad as hell

    Whether Islamist or secularist, any government of "of the people" will turn against the neoliberal economic policies that have enriched regional elites while forcing half or more of the population to live below the $2 per day poverty line. They will refuse to follow the US or Europe's lead in the war on terror if it means the continued large scale presence of foreign troops on the region's soil. They will no longer turn a blind eye, or even support, Israel's occupation and siege across the Occupied Palestinian territories. They will most likely shirk from spending a huge percentage of their national income on bloated militaries and weapons systems that serve to enrich western defence companies and prop up autocratic governments, rather than bringing stability and peace to their countries - and the region as a whole.

    They will seek, as China, India and other emerging powers have done, to move the centre of global economic gravity towards their region, whose educated and cheap work forces will further challenge the more expensive but equally stressed workforces of Europe and the United States.

    In short, if the revolutions of 2011 succeed, they will force the creation of a very different regional and world system than the one that has dominated the global political economy for decades, especially since the fall of communism.

    This system could bring the peace and relative equality that has so long been missing globally - but it will do so in good measure by further eroding the position of the United States and other "developed" or "mature" economies. If Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel and their colleagues don't figure out a way to live with this scenario, while supporting the political and human rights of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, they will wind up with an adversary far more cunning and powerful than al-Qa'eda could ever hope to be: more than 300 million newly empowered Arabs who are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more."

    *Be kind to your wifes, husbands and SOs even if your team loses.*  Kiss


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:34pm

    I've got the TV on, stardust, but it's in the living room. I look in from time to time but I'm a fan of the Canadian version of the game, so I lack a dog in this fight. Though sentimentally, I like the Packers.

    I think Mark Levine has it right. The U.S.-imposed balance of power in the Middle East is proving unsustainable, and with it the global economic system the West has tried to fob off on the Third World. Democracy in Egypt would signal the beginning of the end for both, and that would be a very good thing for the world.


    by acanuck on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:01pm

    Levine was a shot in the arm: just right, and really zeroed in on the reasons so many of us are glued to the events, and are so supportive.  It's for us, too. 

    The game: I'd have to vote for the Packers, if what I've heard is true in terms of them being owned by Green Bay, and maybe the stadium, too.  Pretty cool for pro sprts, if it's so.  It's sick when taxpayers pay for stadiums for which private investors gain. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:07pm

    Here is a critique of NPR's coverage that you might find interesting.

    http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:12pm

    Jeezus (so to speak), Lulu; that's an awesome site.  Thank you.  Fighting back against the hideous bullshit framing is so important! 

    We got a report from CCR today (the only organization we still manage to send a check to) and they were talking about their efforts to change the Wikileaks framing from: "How did they do it?" (i.e., 'who's guilty?") to "How have they changed the debate?"

    Freaking Mara Liasson has a gig on NPR. 

    Bookmarked the site; good contribution.  Thanks.  I can't watch the teevee coverage; probably break the damned thing with a can of tomatoes.  Lies, lies, and damned lies.  No cable, if there's anything out there, but some have said Maddow and O'Donnell seem good with a Suleiman govt.  Guess it's up to the folks doing the deals, but it's hard to picture, isn't it?

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:18pm

    Fantastic contribution to this discussion. Thanks for this, stardust. For all it's gravity, I find a glimpse of a silver lining here. I'm at work, listening via radio and writing via iPhone. Gotta keep it short. Go Packers! :0)

    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:39pm

    Go Packers!  Innocent   Kefaya!  Solidarity!  Enough!  Tunis!  (Welcome.)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:20pm

    Why do you hate the steeler nation?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:24pm

      Because their quarterback is a PIG!


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:53pm

    Piano Man is an A-Hole....cheeseheads unite!


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:57pm

    So do you believe that US should have authority of the regime in Egypt?  Should Obama be able to dictate to the people of Egypt what governmental system should happen?  and what if the people of Egypt disagree with what Obama decides?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:18pm

    That ship has left the station.  Deleted the rest.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:29pm

    Upon further review (ahem!) it occurs to me that what Levine presents reads like a John leCarre novel WRIT VERY LARGE. All these sinister plot twists and smarmy characters. But this sure doesn't read like fiction. Indeed, it all offers too plausible an explanation for what are otherwise inexplicable activities being undertaken in DC, Munich, and Cairo. Like a LeCarre novel, let's hope this ends with the good guys winning. It just might happen, and the whole world would look different as a result.

    by SleepinJeezus on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:29am