I support Obama on Egypt.

[edhopper]

I am very often critical of Obama on these boards, but I think he has this one right.
He is using quiet diplomacy to get Murbarak to go (on the phone daily with him), without appearing like America is having a heavy hand.
I think he completely supports a Democratic change in Egypt, but it cannot look like an American fiat.
I am reminded of The Cuban Missile Crisis or the collapse of the soviet Union. Bot instances when an American President used behind the scenes diplomacy to get the right outcome.

[MissHoneychurch]

1. I agree with you

The people of Egypt are capable of changing their government themselves. Isn't that what the U.S. wants? An intern revolution? That way the world can be sure that the new government won't be a puppet of the U.S.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I agreed with you yesterday

Murbarak just threw down a gauntlet on the heads of peaceful protestors. I don't blaim Obama for that, but what might have been working yesterday isn't working today. I understand that Obama is able to and is working behind the scenes, but more is needed now.

[K8-EEE]

8. but WHAT?

Everybody wings in in a revolution, this is a volatile situation -- I just don't get this idea that Obama is all-powerful and can fix it by just issuing an opinion.

[renegade000]

9. heck, even if we decide to go all-in on this

It's not like the aerial bombardments and invasion will begin right away either. maybe the Bush people were right about this "reality-based" community notion. we don't want a leader to just react to the facts of the situation on the ground, that's too slow and makes you look weak and indecisive. just pick a course of action (preferably one that makes you look macho) and roll with it from the beginning, "damn the torpedoes!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. What I meant

...is that from the limited vantage point offered me as a vary interested bystander, it seemed to me that Obama was playing the situation well, trying to push matters in a positive peaceful direction toward a positive peaceful resolution. It also seems that Mubarak has chosen to dig in his heals about leaving soon. Obama and his team now needs to either revise Plan A or come up with Plan B. God bless them, I can only hope they can find an effective way of influencing what is happening now. But they can't stand pat with yesterdays plan, events continue to shift. It matters less what Obama says in public, the greatest influence we have is with the Egyptian military. That is where his stance will need to be recalibrated.

The Egyptian Army has the potential to emerge from this intact with the support and gratitude of the Egyptian people. Or the public could turn against them if the people's blood flows without any protection provided them.

[gateley]

82. I agree but somebody made a good suggestion when I was saying the exact same

thing you are: Cut off funding. He doesn't need to come out and threaten publicly, but it's a useful tool that's worked with other countries.

I agree it's naive to think Obama saying "I'm with the people! Stop this RIGHT NOW" is not going to have any effect whatsoever on Mubarak. Maybe money will do the trick.

And God forgive me, but I posted elsewhere that I'd love to see a Mossad-type "extraction" take place. Take him out to the desert and leave him in the desert.

Guy on MSNBC just said that's what we need to do - withdraw the aid but he's not sure it would have any effect as Mubarak is trying to save his regime.

[Bragi]

3. Obama failed to back the demands of the people

When Obama last night refused to explicitly back the demands of the protesters that Mubarak leave NOW, he set the stage for today's final attempt by Mubarak and his regime to defeat the uprising.

I hope Obama changes his tune today, and is explicit that Mubarak must leave now, not nine months from now, after the Sepotember elections.

If he does that he will have chosen the right side of history, since the uprising will likely succeed with or without Obama's support, and Mubarak will be gone by Friday.

If he continues to decline to back the demand of the uprising, he will be on the wrong side of history, and have little influence over what happens next.

[phleshdef]

10. Only an idiot would demand such a thing.

I'm glad someone like him is President and not someone like you. Such hot headed, emotionally driven nonsense has no place in fragile diplomatic situations.

[Bragi]

16. "Fragile diplomatic situations" !!! What nonsense

Open your eyes. What we have is a peaceful protesters being attacked by police thugs to prop up a violent regime.

[JuniperLea]

20. What would you have Obama do?

What would you like to see?

[TBF]

26. Obama should stay out of it - he and Netanyahu have no business

deciding who should lead Egypt. That should be up to the people of Egypt, whether we "like" their choices or not.

[sylvi]

40. Thank you

I thought we were supposed to be keeping our nose out of other countries' affairs. Apparently the lesson hasn't been learned yet.

[Bragi]

49. This is U.S client state and Mubarak is a puppet

Now that there is a popular uprising, the U.S suddenly goes all "neutral".

Forgive me if I'm a tad skeptical about this kind of hypocrisy.

[TBF]

54. No kidding. nt

[Bragi]

27. Here's what Obama should do if he wants to lead

1. Announce that last night he said his number one priority is to avoid violence. Today's events make it clear that as long as Mubarak remains, violence will happen. he therefore joins with the Egyptian people in asking that Mubarak leave now -- not nine months from now.

2. Say all aid will be shut down until Mubarak leaves.

The result will be that the military will withdraw support from Mubarak, who will be gone within 24 hours, and the U.S will have some influence over what happens next.

[JuniperLea]

28. You are confused...

Obama asked for transitional leadership to handle the process leading up to elections. He never said Mubarak could or should stay, and he reiterated his oft mentioned statement about fully supporting the Egyptian people in their quest for democracy.

[Bragi]

30. He refused to back the demand that Mubarak must go now

That is the situation: there is a popular uprising demanding democracy, and the immediate departure of the U.S-backed thug who rules their country.

If Obama was clear in backing the forces of democracy, the thug would now be leaving, instead of mounting the bloodbath that is now occurring.

[jeff47]

35. The US has already said they want Mubarak to step down

And immediately start a transition to a new government.

In diplomat-ese, that means get out now. A stronger statement would not change the current situation, because the timetable for Mubarak's departure is up to Mubarak.

[Bragi]

37. Sorry, Obama fudged

He made it clear that Mubarak could stay on if he began a "transition" now.

That's exactly what Mubarak said he would do in his earlier statement: that he would stay until September and oversee the "transition."

[jeff47]

51. Only in your mind

Mubarak wants to stay in power until elections in the fall. Obama called for the transition to start now. The fall is not now.

If Obama supported Mubarak staying on, he or Clinton would have said Mubarak can stay. Or they would have backed Mubarak's plan. They did not do that. Instead, they called for a transition to start NOW.

[Bragi]

60. Mubarak said the transition begins with him

He'll just stay on till September to oversee it.

And Obama's said not a word to dispute that.

Want to see how pleased Egyptians and others are with Obama's "leadership"?

Check out the twitter stream yourself:

http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23jan25%20obama

[jeff47]

62. Still only in your mind.

Mubarak: Transition will happen in September.
Obama: Transition must start now.

Please explain how those two statements lead to Obama wanting to keep Mubarak in power.

[Bragi]

64. Gibbs just refused to say Mubarak must leave "now"

Feel free to remain as obtuse as you wish, but Gibbs was just asked point blank if Mubarak must leave "now" or wait till September, and he waffled all over the place.

He sure didn't say he supported the protesters demand that Mubarak leave NOW.

I believe this is turning into a foreign policy disaster for Obama, and he has no-one to blame for it but himself.

[Raschel]

74. Foreign policy disaster? Nobody to blame but himself? Do you think the Pres. sits in a room all by

his lonesome little self and thinks up statements?

Do you think you have wiser statements to offer than a man of his intelligence, and all of the people who are meeting on this situation day and night?

[Bragi]

76. Good plan

He can blame the people he is meeting with, that's the ticket!

[Raschel]

79. It's clear your purpose here is to discredit our President. I gave you links yesterday from several

sources that showed our President sent an envoy to tell Mubarak to leave now, and that he should not be part of the transition.

Now today, you're back at it attacking our President at a time like this.

What an ignorant response.

[Bragi]

80. I would support Obama if he wasn't bungling this crucial matter

Check out how well his efforts are being received by Egyptians and others:

http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23jan25%20obama

[Raschel]

75. Maybe you need a leader like Sarah Palin who spews stupid comments without thinking.

[jeff47]

83. You mean this?

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/02/5976430-gibbs-signals-us-wants-mubarak-out-now

Headline: Gibbs signals U.S. wants Mubarak out now

Please post your link to Gibbs saying the opposite.

[Bragi]

96. Did you even read the article?

He says that "transition" must begin now, and when asked point blank if "beginning the transition now" meant that Mubarak had to leave immediately, he DECLINED to answer the question.

If your being strategically obtuse, have a nice day.

If not, then I tell you what, let's wait for the transcript and return to this matter, okay.

I believe it will confirm that Gibbs explicitly refused to say that Mubarak must leave NOW, consistent with Obama's waffling last night.

[Bragi]

97. Here we go...

Update at 2 p.m. ET: Pressed again about whether the administration's position that the "transition" must happen "now" means that Mubarak must leave office now, rather than after elections in September, Gibbs says "I'm not going to get into more specifics about what the two presidents talked about."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/02/133437766/white-house-repeats-time-for-transition-in-egypt-is-now

Get it? They're still waffling on the central demand of the democratic forces.

And that's why Obama is hiding from the press.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/white-house-egypt-gibbs_n_817515.html

- B

[jeff47]

100. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the article?

Update at 1:30 p.m. ET: Mubarak has said he will remain in power until after an election in September. Is the Obama administration, which says the time for a transition is "now," satisfied with that?

September is not now, Gibbs says.

Holy crap! That's just what I've been saying! And look, it's all explicit like instead of guessing at what Obama really thinks because he did not use your approved words.

So...we've got Gibbs, Clinton and Obama all explicitly saying the time for the transition is now. We've got Mubarak saying the time for transition is later. Yet somehow this means Obama supports Mubarak.

Thank god I never said "Have a nice day" to you. You'd spend a few hours looking for my insidious wish that you have a bad night.

As for your second article...what exactly does the press wanting more interviews have to do with supporting the protesters?

[Bragi]

102. THAT I will check and reflect

[JuniperLea]

38. You are wrong

And no mater how many times you say it, you will still be wrong. You should go back and read what Obama actually said instead of furthering ridiculous RW talking points.

[Bragi]

44. You should get your head out of the sky

People are being beaten, and many will die, while you hope for diplomacy.

[JuniperLea]

77. You should get your head out...

Of whatever dark space it's in. If you think that the Obama administration isn't using the correct diplomacy, that they haven't used the money issue as a hedge, your head must reek. But excuse me for stooping to your level, I apologise.

Obama has stated many times he's on the side of the people, and he told Mubarak he needs to step down and there needs to be an interim leadership... that means sans Mubarak in diplomacy speek... so sorry it has to be pre-digested before some people get it.

[phleshdef]

85. Obama has a much better idea of what he needs to do than you do.

You are just being absurd. Its not our President's place to do anything. Egypt can handle this on its own. And don't give me that bullshit "client state" talking point. You could apply that to a shit load of countries. It means nothing.

[sabrina 1]

106. Yes, that is what he should have said a week ago. But he was

still supporting Mubarak continuing in power just a few days ago. And only when it seemed inevitable did he finally begin to talk about 'transition'. Even then, it was so weak a statement that no one knew what he really meant.

A truly historic moment missed once again by this country and our support for all our other dictators continues unabated.

It's sad to see that people actually believe this government was ever on the side of a democratic Egypt.

And yes, cut off all support to all dictatorships and only when they are democratic nations should we restore it.

[Raschel]

72. Don't expect an answer to that one.

:hi:

[Raschel]

71. Yeah, what nonsense that this affects the entire world. Fragile - bah!

Too bad we don't have someone in there like you for president that can give an simplistic visceral reactionary statement. You wouldn't need to confer with other leaders and consider the ramifications of your statements. You could just go out there and say, "Mubarak, leave now!" :sarcasm:

[JuniperLea]

19. Hear, hear!

The emotionally driven nonsense is irresponsible. People need to get a grip.

I understand, however, that many haven't seen true diplomacy in their lifetimes.

Obama is spot on in his handling of this historic event. His statements are supportive of the people of Egypt, and condemning of the despot currently in power. There will be no cowboys boots or saber rattling, no matter how many emotionally driven cries for such nonsense.

[Raschel]

68. +1

[spanone]

42. and today you want u.s. troops in egypt?

[Democat]

61. Does this apply only to Egypt, or should Obama enforce the will of protesters worldwide?

What about if US protesters demand that Obama resign?

It all seems so simple when I read your post.

[malaise]

4. Ditto

It's very easy for armchair critics to denounce Obama. This is serious business and he has demonstrated more democratic tendencies than any US President in recent times.

[thewiseguy]

5. and how do you know he is on the phone daily with Mubarak asking him to go?

You understand that your entire OP is based on a wishful assumption.

Prior to yesterday the Obama administration was still urging Mubarak for reforms. That is not a sign of "Mubarak please go" to me.

[JuniperLea]

21. Obama said so, that's how we know...

Please pay attention.

[edhopper]

41. Every day on the News

it is reported that Obama was on the phone with Mubarak, sometimes for over a 1/2 hour.
I have no reason to believe the WH or the networks are lying.

[Javaman]

6. Have you checked out what is currently happening now in Cairo?

I think you might rethink your possition and demand Obama condemn Mubarak.

[K8-EEE]

7. "Condemning" is not a magic wand

It's a difficult situation and he's correct to approach it carefully. Being elected President does not come with a magic wand that gives you the power to settle revolutions in foreign lands with a sentence or two.

[Bragi]

12. If he explcitly supported the protesters demand, it's over

This violence would not be happening if Obama had not fudged yesterday and made it clear he was okay with Mubarak leaving on his own timetable.

He needs to back the protesters demand that Mubarak leave now, not in September.

If he does that, Mubarak will be gone by the end of the week.

If not, Mubarak will try to stay on to defeat the uprising.

[renegade000]

18. or something like this would happen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

I don't think Obama wants to risk that, unless he's willing to back up his words with lots of high explosives:

[Bragi]

22. Except there was no popular uprising to support in Iraq

The people of Egypt will look after business, but it will be better for them if Obama gets off the fence and supports their clear and persistent demand that Mubarak leave NOW, not in September.

[renegade000]

31. i'm not sure what you mean

The fact that there were uprisings is a matter of historical record, as is the fact that we fomented them. Though if you meant that you don't think the 1991 uprisings were "popular", you're free to believe that, but I don't think you'll convince a lot of people. Doesn't this raise a bit of a catch-22? What kind of guy kills a hundred-thousand and displaces millions to quell an "unpopular" revolt? Wouldn't that be the kind of guy there would be a popular revolt against?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Raschel]

78. There is nobody to blame for this violence except Mubarak and his rent-a-crowds. Over and over you

blame our President for a grave situation such as this.

[sabrina 1]

107. Mubarak is our 'rent-a-dictator' which certainly does make us

responsible. It really is shameful to try to relinquish responsibility for our encouragement of these thugs to abuse their own people. It's about time for the American people to stand up to THEIR government and demand that support for all Dictators stop!!

[phleshdef]

11. Per usual, he is approaching the situation with calm and reason instead of heated, emotional drivel.

[Bragi]

13. Nonsense. He is failing to lead /nt

[jeff47]

34. He's not the leader of Egypt. (nt)

[Bragi]

45. Read up: Egypt is a U.S client state

The U.S has had no problem supporting this thug for 30 years. Now that there is a popular uprising, there is a sudden need not to intervene.

[jeff47]

48. Aid does not a client state make

Egypt's GDP in 2009: 188.9 Billion http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:EG
US Aid to Egypt in 2009 1.8 Billion.

They aren't dependent on US aid. That level of aid can give us some influence, but is nowhere near enough to give us control.

[Bragi]

50. Mubarak would not be in power for 30 years with U.S backing

[jeff47]

52. Yet that still doesn't give us control of the country. (nt)

[phleshdef]

92. Then how in the hell have so many other leaders we haven't backed manage to hold decades of power?

[mix]

93. What country receives the most US military aid?

Israel and then Egypt. The Egyptian government depends upon US military aid to stay in power.

It is astonishing how uninformed many are about how the American empire works.

[jeff47]

105. Take a look at those stats again.

Total aid to Egypt, both military and non-military, is a tiny portion of Egypt's GDP. Egypt can afford to maintain their own military without US aid. They're also smart enough to take the money we've offered.

Think of it this way: You've got a job that makes $100,000 a year. Last year, I gave you $1000. Now I tell you to quit your job or I won't give you $1000 next year. According to your theory of how the world works, you'd quit that job. According to my theory of how the world works, you'd make due with $100,000 in income instead of $101,000.

[mix]

109. absurd nt

[phleshdef]

86. Your claims of "client state" mean absolutely nothing.

We've supported standing governments all over the world for years. If a country wants to be our ally and it has benefitted us, then we've went along with it and treated them as an ally. There are both good and bad things that have came with that, but thats neither here nor there. Its not our President's place to do anything here but maintaing diplomacy and make the best of whatever relationship we can have with whoever is ultimately the next leader of Egypt. Your absurd whining that he should be injecting himself square into the situation and taking a solid side is chest beating bravado nonsense that has no place in the labor of maintaining a civil, diplomatic relationships with other countries.

[phleshdef]

88. Fuck "leading". Its none of our damn business and the fact that we aided them doesn't make it so.

There was a poor family of neighbors that my mom use to help out all the time. When they decided to divorce, she didn't go over there and stick her nose in it and take sides.

Thats basically what you are suggesting we do and its childish and poorly thought out.

[mix]

89. Uninformed citizens who don't know how the American empire operates.

That's why our government gets away with its crimes abroad...oil wars, propping up dictatorships.

"None of our damn business"? Were you thinking this over the last 30 years when the US was militarily aiding and training Egyptian security forces?

I doubt it.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[FLPanhandle]

15. Which is what I expect of any president

Furthermore, no one posting heated and emotional comments here knows 1% of what's happening behind the scenes.

[JuniperLea]

24. Correct

This is getting beyond silly.

[TBF]

14. Seriously? Mubarak has just stood in front of 80 million

and said he's not leaving. Who do you think is behind that?

[Bragi]

17. Obama even said he spoke with Mubarak after that statement

Clearly, Obama was fine with Mubarak's timetable.

[jeff47]

33. Why, exactly does that timetable give you that conclusion?

Mubarak says he's not going.
Then Obama talks to him.

Did Obama use some sort of time-traveling telephone to influence Mubarak's earlier statement? 'Cause Mubarak hasn't said anything since their conversation. Or have you bugged the phones at the White House, so you know exactly what was said?

[Bragi]

36. "Mubarak hasn't said anything since their conversation"

Mubarak is not saying anything, his actions speak for him.

Emboldened by Obama's obvious refusal to endorse the demands of the people that he leave immediately, Mubarak knew he was free to organize his thugs to attack the protesters.

That's what he has done, and where things stand.

I hope Obama now shows leadership and clearly backs the demands of the people.

If he does, Mubarak will be gone by tomorrow, and a peaceful "transition" can begin.

If he doesn't, Mubarak will hang on, and there will be a lot of violence.

[jeff47]

46. So, you bugged the White House phones then?

'Cause you actually don't know what was said.

Mubarak is not Obama's servant. All Obama can do is apply pressure. What Mubarak does is up to Mubarak.

[Bragi]

47. Mubarak has been a U.S puppet for 30 years

Suddenly, now that there is a popular uprising against this client thug, Obama has to get all "neutral" and diplomatic.

Hypocrisy, thy name is U.S foreign policy.

[jeff47]

53. No, Mubarak has been US supported for 30 years

The only things Mubarak has done over the last 30 years that is in support of US foreign policy is not go to war with Israel and he kept the Suez canal open.

Well, Egypt keeps losing wars with Israel, so that's not exactly something Mubarak would have done whether or not the US gave any aid.

And the fees for the Suez make a hell of a lot of money for Egypt. So closing that isn't in Egypt's interest either.

So if Mubarak has been a US puppet, what exactly did Mubarak do that was against his own interests, but in the US's interest? 'Cause that's the difference between someone receiving foreign aid, and someone being a puppet - puppets do what you want despite not wanting to do so.

[TheWraith]

59. Oh please. You're looking for ANY way to spin things as Obama's fault.

If he doesn't say anything, he's supporting Mubarak, and if he exerts pressure on Mubarak to leave--and we already know from the leaks that they've told him to get out now--you accuse him of "emboldening." I'm sure that if he issues a public demand for Mubarak's resignation, you would say it was toothless and tepid.

How about this idea: It's not Barack Obama's job to run Egypt's internal politics?

[Bragi]

66. Egypt is a U.S client state

The U.S has propped up and supported thug Mubarak now for 30 years.

Suddenly, when a popular uprising demands that he leave now, the U.S gets all neutral and diplomatic.

The hypocrisy here is stunning.

[jeff47]

32. Mubarak

Egypt is not a puppet state. We can not snap our fingers and make Mubarak leave.

[Bragi]

39. "Egypt is not a puppet state" Huh? /nt

[jeff47]

63. Foreign aid that is less than 1% of GDP doesn't give enough control to make it a puppet state. (nt)

[blondeatlast]

25. Once upon a time, the US supported the opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan

the result? The opposition beat the Russians (YAY!) and then took over. That was the Taliban (oops...).

The protesters may not be as united as we think they are when things shake out. The US must proceed with diplomatic caution.

[K8-EEE]

29. Right?

I'm always so :eyes: at people who look at these extremely complicated situations and go "why doesn't Obama simply....like I would do?"

I'm happy we don't have hotheads McCain and Palin in there and there is so much we DON'T know about what is going on behind the scenes.

[Catherina]

43. The Egyptian people, dead women and children alike, thank you n/t

[TBF]

55. +1000 nt

[leftstreet]

73. +1

[fishwax]

56. I think it's a bit silly or naive to assume that Mubarak will do whatever Obama tells him to

Obviously none of us really knows what Obama is telling Mubarak or what other people in our government are telling their counterparts in Egypt. The Obama administration, I think, sent a pretty clear signal that they don't support Mubarak staying back on Friday when Gibbs, in his press conference, was given a clear opportunity to express the administration's support and declined.

As for how much and what kinds of pressure, if any, (or even, for that matter, support, if any) is being offered behind the scenes, none of us really know. But Mubarak has been head of Egypt's government for 30 years, through five U.S. administrations. I don't think simply telling him to step down would do it.

It's far from a guarantee that threatening to cut off aid or even that threatening military intervention would get him to step down immediately. It *might* cause the army to turn against him, but then again he might be able to turn it into a rallying call against U.S. intervention in Egypt's self-determination, both among people within Egypt and other people (and governments) in the Middle East. Obviously the threat of the American intervention wouldn't strike all the protesters as a bad thing, but you can bet that there are plenty of people who are as distrustful of the U.S. as they are of Mubarak.

[Iterate]

58. Support him if you will, but it's time he earned that Peace Prize.

It's not about the US pulling puppet strings, or American fiat. It's about assembling (and very quickly assembling) an international consensus and very clear message to Mubarak.

And that message to Mubarak should be, in no uncertain terms, that if the security police fire on the protesters, he will be tried as a war criminal.

Beyond that, a collective statement by the hobbled EU parliament, EU ministers, Obama and the US government, the UN, all governments that Mubarak has lost legitimacy and must go now. They can then help the Egyptian people work out, if necessary, the methods and procedures for an interim government and new election.

The US military/CIA also has plenty of direct contacts within the Egyptian military, and business leaders have their influence. Pull the aid, unplug the support.

It's not imposing American will, it's a emergency solution avoiding a tragedy, and is in the best interests of the Egyptian people and the international community.

Now, as in now.

[highplainsdem]

65. +1

[demmiblue]

67. +2 n/t

[Dappleganger]

69. +3

[barbiegeek]

70. I support Obama

[gateley]

81. I agree and as a matter of fact I've been defending that position repeatedly, but

at this point I PRAY he's told Mubarak -- no more money until your thugs knock it off.

[mix]

84. The Obama administration has botched this, badly.

The spiraling violence is the result of allowing Mubarak to cling to power until September...more than enough time for him to unleash his thugs and their American-made weapons.

Shameful that our political class cannot bring itself to break with this ruinous pattern of dictatorships over democracy.

[Bragi]

91. Yep /nt

[phleshdef]

94. I hope your chest doesn't get sore from all the beating.

[mix]

95. I hope you can learn to put together an historically and politically

sound argument...instead of partisan rhetoric.

Otherwise, don't waste my time.

[jeff47]

101. So when did Obama become president of Egypt?

After all, Obama "allowing to cling to power" would mean that we are in absolute control of Egypt.

And I'm really amazed at the people who don't seem to understand the definition of "Now", the word everyone has been using in the White House for when to replace Mubarak's regime.

[mix]

103. So which is it?

Does Obama have influence or not in Egypt?

Your post title and then your quotation of "Now" make no sense.

This is a contradiction and more evidence that few understand how the American empire does business or how it props up dictatorships to protect American interests.

[jeff47]

104. I'm responding to both of the errors in your post

1) Your assertion that Obama has power over what Mubarak does. They can apply pressure, but Mubarak will remain in Egypt as long as he wants to. Assuming there isn't anything like a coup.

2) That the administration wants Mubarak to stay until September. They've repeatedly said that Mubarak's timetable of stepping down in September is not acceptable.

[mix]

108. another contradiction nt

[hulka38]

87. Which policy?

The earlier one where the administration wanted Mubarak to remain and make reforms or the new one where Mubarak has to go NOW?

[Taverner]

98. Agreed

And knowing that this is where the president shines, gives me, well, hope

[Uzybone]

99. So do I

its quite easy for the skilled second and third guessers to know exactly what should have been done. But that is why no one puts them in charge of anything, they don't think ahead.