Israelis shocked by Obama’s “betrayal” of Mubarak; Update: NPR source says Mubarak getting ready to step down

posted at 8:46 pm on January 31, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m shocked that they’re shocked. What else is he supposed to do?

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness…

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled “A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam.” It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, “to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president … an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?”…

“The question is, do we think Obama is reliable or not,” said an Israeli official, who declined to be named.

“Right now it doesn’t look so. That is a question resonating across the region not just in Israel.”

Explain to me what the United States gains by sticking with Mubarak at this point, or what it would even mean to “stick with him” now. Realistically, the only way he holds onto power is by convincing the army to renege on its promise not to use force and to turn Tahrir Square into Tiananmen. If that happened, we’d lose any shred of goodwill we still have in the region and we’d end up dumping him anyway. Short of that, he’s finished; the best he can hope for, realistically, is to stay on a bit longer as the nominal leader of a transitional government in advance of elections. The outcome of those elections may be rotten, but it is what it is. Even if the U.S. declared unequivocal moral support for Mubarak in order to reassure the Saudis and Jordanians, watching him topple anyway would only remind them of how little leverage we have. Which is to say, there are no good outcomes here that involve Mubarak; in all likelihood, there are no good outcomes period. (There are certainly no good outcomes for Israel.) In fact, if Mubarak did somehow hold on, I wonder if his political near-death experience wouldn’t frighten him into turning belligerent towards Israel in order to shore up support among the public. The only option for the U.S. is to side with the opposition, however tentatively, and do what we can to get guarantees from them that they’ll keep a cold peace with Israel and keep the Suez Canal open. It is what it is, which is why even McConnell and Boehner are sympathetic to Obama’s handling of this thus far.

A point to ponder as you watch Netanyahu address the crisis: Some U.S. hawks like Reuel Marc Gerecht think that Islamist democracy may be an inevitable stage in the evolution of some Arab countries from dictatorship to something more modern and liberal. Iranians have already learned the hard way what works and what doesn’t. Egypt hasn’t yet, and it may be that the only way to find out is to experience it firsthand. That’s a cold comfort for what might be coming, just as it’s a cold comfort that even a secular Egyptian government might be inclined towards hostility against Israel. But it is what it is.

Update: He’s a dead man walking no matter what we do. Backing him wholeheartedly would accomplish nothing.

Two of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s closest allies, his new vice president, Omar Suleiman, and his defense minister, Hussein Tantawi, are quietly working on a plan under which Mubarak would step down from power, according to a U.S. scholar who has been staying in regular touch with the Egyptian political and military leadership.

“They want to be sure that Mubarak is going to cooperate,” said Stephen P. Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development and a longtime confidant of Egyptian and Israeli leaders.

The two-part plan, according to Cohen, would involve the immediate removal of 100 members of the Egyptian Parliament whose election this past fall was seen as illegitimate. They would be replaced by 100 candidates who were barred from running in the election or who were defeated because of government meddling in the election process.

A second possible step would be the organization of new parliamentary and presidential elections. The plan, according to Cohen, “requires [Mubarak] to give up his office.” Asked whether Mubarak would do that, Cohen answered, “He is getting ready to do so.”

It sounds like the idea is to keep Omar Suleiman as president and give the opposition some sort of presence in parliament without it being decisive. Are protesters going to settle for that? They’re holding a million-man march tomorrow in order to see … Mubarak’s intelligence chief installed as new strongman?

Update: Tapper reports that Obama is sending Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt under Reagan and Bush 41, to Cairo in order to discuss “transition.” Quote: “Senior officials would not discuss whether Wisner was charged with showing Mubarak the door.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

2011 is shaping up to be a hell of a year.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Not surprised at all. The Ditherer in Chief does it again!

400lb Gorilla on January 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM

C’mon Israel, get a cluestick. He doesn’t care about you anymore than he cares about the American people.

tessa on January 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Shocked, shocked?

Inanemergencydial on January 31, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Jeebus… is it 1979 and Jimmuh is in charge again…

yep when I think of who to call when the Mid East Flairs up….. Community Organizer just jumps out at me… Then I think peanut farmer.

roflmao

donabernathy on January 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

If they lost the U.S why should they follow him?

tomas on January 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Or there’s always option c) give Israel another 6 days to work their magic.

John the Libertarian on January 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Iran wasn’t next door to Israel in 1978

Sekhmet on January 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

As Nixon said about the Shah, “you don’t grease the skids for your friends”

clnurnberg on January 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Israel stands to be a good deal more shocked than they are now, in the near future.

Their refusal to take the land in 1967, (meaning Gaza, the West Bank, and Golan,) and formally annex and settle it, should doom them very shortly now.

Should, except that it won’t, and for a reason we have not seen (at least this openly) for a good long while now.

rightwingyahooo on January 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM

NPR has a bad habit with scoops, if you remember AZ.

BJ* on January 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Elbaradei, the guy poised to take over, seems moderate in some ways, but why has he been labeled “a stooge for Iran”?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/31/egypts-mohamed-elbaradei-a-stooge-says-american-jewish-leade/

itsnotaboutme on January 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Shocked?

Didn’t they get the memo?

Obama has never been a friend of Israel. muslim dictators, marxists and communist regimes is his cup of tea.

BruthaMan on January 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Who around here remembers the gas lines of the 70s with jimmah at the helm? Will history repeat itself with the clown & his posse in charge? I fear for my beautiful grandchildren.

lukespapa on January 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM

“…but it is what it is.”

You can say that again…

“It is what it is,…”

You can say that again…

“But it is what it is.”

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Israel knows perfectly well the bind Obama is in. Doesn’t stop them from rubbing Obama’s face in it tho :)

BJ* on January 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM

The alternative?
Strongly backing Mubarak against the .03 of the population that is protesting.

Then strongly urge him to institute changes in policy by refusing aid to Egypt until he complies.

I agree that Mubarak should step down. I’m just not sure that the Obama administration was engaged enough to assist in a planned and orderly transition of power. They were caught with their pants down and have been trying cover up the fact that they never saw this coming.

It may be too late now…Hopefully I’m wrong.

AnthonyK on January 31, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Let’s use the Biden plan for Iraq…chop Egypt up into 6 different parts.

SouthernGent on January 31, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Explain to me what the United States gains by sticking with Mubarak at this point, or what it would even mean to “stick with him” now.

too far gone dude. Ol’ Hosni better throw in the towel (pun intended) cuz homeboy’s done. POTUS is between a rock and a hard place–there is no good position on this one. The status quo–sticking by HM–ignores the reality that he is not supported by the people at all.

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 9:04 PM

This is an excellent analysis of what is going on in Egypt and its repercussions for the US vis a vis the whole ME.

http://www.carolineglick.com/
Locate her piece called “Clueless in Washington”.

Glick’s contention is that the US has been caught between the naivete of Bush’s embrace of democratization based on a belief that all people long to be free and self-determining as they are in the Western cultures and the ideology of ObaMao’s anti-colonialism that blames the West for all of the ills in the ME and the world in general.

onlineanalyst on January 31, 2011 at 9:04 PM

OT- I heard that 100 million Americans will see a giant global warming storm overnight. Good luck to you all.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I’m shocked that they’re shocked.

Yep, me too. It’s not so much what was he supposed to do. It’s what did they expect from this closet Israeliphobe. Surely Bibi saw the cut of his jib long before now.

petefrt on January 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Did the NPR announcer use an extra-breathy and hushed voice to announce Mubarak stepping down?

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Come on Barry… Give us your Best Reagan Impersonation
The media has been paint’n ya as reaganesque… Damn son this ain’t the Soviet Union….it’s Egypt… think pimple on his butt…. that outta do it.

roflmao

donabernathy on January 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

OT- I heard that 100 million Americans will see a giant global warming storm overnight. Good luck to you all.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I heard you could get a waiver if you just sent a check in by midnight made out to “Obama’s Cap and Trade Boondoggle, Inc”.

waivers.

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Even the French and British are hostile to Israel. Why wouldn’t a free and democratic Iran or Egypt be the same?

joe_doufu on January 31, 2011 at 9:08 PM

An Islamist state is unacceptable. It is only a prelude to terror and war.

AshleyTKing on January 31, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Why the shock?

Jimaah Carter is a notorious Anti-Semite.
Obama is Carter on Steroids.

Geochelone on January 31, 2011 at 9:09 PM

OT- I heard that 100 million Americans will see a giant global warming storm overnight. Good luck to you all.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Yup, I’m trying to do something to heal the planet. This afternoon, I bought shares in the Gore Carbon Credit fund. Tomorrow, you’ll see the climate get better.

petefrt on January 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Do we really lose by backing Mubarak? The U.S. supports Israel; we could literally resurrect Mohammed and allow him to decapitate Dubya Bush in Mecca’s main square and most of the ME would still hate us.

Do what we need to do for whatever reason we see fit, it’s not like we can really gain any long term support from the epicenter of the world’s surviving Neanderthal community.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Don’t understand the ‘shock’. Last words a foreign head of state wants to hear is Barry saying “Don’t worry, I have your back!”

Didn’t the Israeli’s see how well Barry took care of the Poles?

GarandFan on January 31, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Jimmeh Bama meets his killer rabbit moment.

Time for a vacation. And some more golf.

profitsbeard on January 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Why the shock?

Jimaah Carter is a notorious Anti-Semite.
Obama is Carter on Steroids.

Geochelone on January 31, 2011 at 9:09 PM

yeah really. I wonder when the LAT will ever release Obama’s tape made at that party with Rashid Khalidi.

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

There’s a whole flock of Black Swans circling around out there.

This is just the first to land.

Buckle up.

Bruno Strozek on January 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Not surprised at all. The Ditherer in Chief does it again!

What’s he’s supposed to do?

rickyricardo on January 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I’m shocked that they’re shocked. What else is he supposed to do?

Not work to oust him in order to achieve the country being ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood via Elbaradei?

Because if you look at the timeline going back to ’09, the evidence says that’s what he’s doing.

And yes, that would mean intentionally selling out Israel.

Cindy Cooper on January 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM

The alternative?
Strongly backing Mubarak against the .03 of the population that is protesting.

AnthonyK on January 31, 2011 at 9:03 PM

You know, I got to thinking. Only .03 can change leaders in Egypt…yet when 60% of our population is against obamcare, we get it anyway. Can we please change our leaders before the next election?

lukespapa on January 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Some U.S. hawks like Reuel Marc Gerecht think that Islamist democracy may be an inevitable stage in the evolution of some Arab countries from dictatorship to something more modern and liberal.

Yeah and Marx thought a dictatorship of the proletariat was an inevitable stage of history in the evolution of a classless and stateless society. Which is as rational as thinking that an “Islamist democracy” is an interim stage between a secular dictatorship and a modern liberal society. “U.S. hawks” are generally dreamers, ideologues, and gnostics as the Israelis are now finding out to their utter horror.

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Carter lost Iran. Obama lost Egypt. Notice a pattern?

pearson on January 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

It sounds like the idea is to keep Omar Suleiman as president

Let’s hope those pushing this scenario prevail for the time being. You can be sure Obama’s preferance is ElBaradei. They’ve as much as said so. And that means he wants the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully that can be staved off. Despite Obama, not thanks to him.

Cindy Cooper on January 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Anybody shocked by Obama betraying anyone or anything has really, really not been paying attention.

Hell, you can even ask the liberals. On that one, even those loons will agree. Go read the threads at DU.

He is the Great Betrayer.

Professor Blather on January 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Didn’t NPR pronounce Giffords dead?

They have no credibility.

commodore on January 31, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Not surprised at all. The Ditherer in Chief does it again!

What’s he’s supposed to do?

rickyricardo on January 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Maybe shut up and back off. He seemed to do that pretty well in regard to Iran in the summer of ’09.

ddrintn on January 31, 2011 at 9:20 PM

If only Barry the Ojesus had given a speech to calm the masses…

…um…nevermind.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Update: Tapper reports that Obama is sending Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt under Reagan and Bush 41, to Cairo in order to discuss “transition.”

Supposedly he has 25 billion dollars stashed away, probably a good share from american taxpayers. I hope that is enough to see him through.

a capella on January 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

An NPR source. Aren’t they the ones who reported that Gabrielle Giffords was dead?

mchristian on January 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Even the French and British are hostile to Israel. Why wouldn’t a free and democratic Iran or Egypt be the same?

joe_doufu on January 31, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Lol! Franco-British hostility to Israel is not comparable to Iranian hostility to Israel.

The point is that the pixie dust of democracy is supposed to be able to transform the ME from being Ahmadinejad-led to the equivalent of de Villepin-led.

But of course “We the (Islamic) people” can and do vote for the extremist candidate if that’s what they really want.

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Realistically, the only way he holds onto power is by convincing the army to renege on its promise not to use force and to turn Tahrir Square into Tiananmen.

I guess there’s a problem following the Obama Doctrine of “hit back twice as hard” and “punish your enemies” if the military’s loyalty is to the country instead of to the man.

It’s why Obama wanted his domestic military, and in practice has had to settle for the SEIU to try to suppress dissent.

malclave on January 31, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I’m surprised about the surprise. Barry voted ‘present’ countless in the State Senate. He is a wind watcher.

Birdseye on January 31, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Carter lost Iran. Obama lost Egypt. Notice a pattern?

pearson on January 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

This is no accident. Two years ago when the Iranian youths were rising up against their dictator, did Obama say “Ahmadinejad must step down” or “We stand with the Iranian people”? No. He didn’t say jack squat. In 2011 the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to create an Islamic terror state in Egypt, and all of a sudden Barry feels “Mubarak must step down” and “We stand with the Egyptian people”. The present turn of events isn’t just the inevitable consequence of an incompetent US President. This is Barry’s preference.

joe_doufu on January 31, 2011 at 9:23 PM

countless times

Birdseye on January 31, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I get what AllahP is saying…but here’s a thought. If Obama disses an ally…even one who’s headed out the door….what other allys will trust him after this?

I get the situation. Rock and hard place. But this is a big, huge, chaotic mess…and the end results, no matter what they are, just may bite us hard in the arse. And I do mean HARD!!!

capejasmine on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Explain to me what the United States gains by sticking with Mubarak at this point,

Hindsight and all of that but shouldn’t these clowns with all of the smart power have been working on this for the last 2 years?
They have no foreign policy and you can bet after Obama is voted out in 2012 that all of the dumb moves by this administration will be revealed. Thank goodness they are finally sending someone with experience.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:26 PM

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Yeah. L O L.

Really funny stuff.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:26 PM

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Apparently, ernesto’s still upset that he wasn’t able to party with Uday and Qusay.

malclave on January 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Explain to me what the United States gains by sticking with Mubarak at this point, or what it would even mean to “stick with him” now.

When the islamic brotherhood came out and said that the plan was to consolidate in Egypt and then attack Israel, the opportunity existed to attain our goals without looking like an imperialist. We watched that opportunity go by with no response. Interesting how this administration needed to back the regime in Iran, but not in Egypt – what is the difference, again?

Hiya Ciska on January 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Lol! Franco-British hostility to Israel is not comparable to Iranian hostility to Israel.

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I was commenting on Allahpundit’s apparently profound observation that “even” if the uprising resulted in a secular, free Egypt, it might still be hostile to Israel. When I mentioned Iran I meant the hypothetical secular Iran that might have resulted if the 2009 revolution had succeeded. My point is that it’s no surprise that these nations, even if free and prosperous, would be hostile to Israel.

Because almost everybody except the US and Canada is hostile to Israel.

joe_doufu on January 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

No, it’s more like “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”. See Shah vs Ayatollah.

ddrintn on January 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

No, it’s fear for what’s about to take the dictators place which is a natural reaction. However, look how these administration clowns messed up the Iran and Columbia situations. Our country will be far better off when we remove these amatures from office.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Well, it seems as though Obama’s plan to destroy the West is coming along nicely. Don’t look for the things he’s said, look for the things you don’t yet know about.

OldEnglish on January 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

No, it’s more like “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”. See Shah vs Ayatollah.

ddrintn on January 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

That still amounts to “self determination is a natural right (for christians)”. Provide any rationalization you like, you are still essentially favoring dictatorship over freedom; embracing your Hobbesian roots, as conservatives so often do when push comes to shove.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

It’s not America’s fault the world hates Israel.

lexhamfox on January 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

You express your ignorance so well in myriad ways.

Inanemergencydial on January 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Some U.S. hawks like Reuel Marc Gerecht think that Islamist democracy may be an inevitable stage in the evolution of some Arab countries from dictatorship to something more modern and liberal.

By “liberal” I assume he means that minorities are treated with respect?

What has happened to the Christians and Jews of Iran, not to mention the Ba’hais?

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

It’s a fair point. If this revolution could end up in a free, secular republic instead of an Islamic murder state, then that’d be even better than Mubarak. But the odds aren’t good, and even if it’s attainable a lot of people may die in the process, which is why supporting the benign dictatorship may be the less risky, less terrible option.

IMHO what we really need to do is convert the Muslims to Christianity — just as Ann Coulter recommended on 9/12/2001. Funny, we’ve had relatively little controversy over invading their countries and killing their leaders, but a huge taboo against step 3.

joe_doufu on January 31, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Why the shock?

Jimaah Carter is a notorious Anti-Semite.
Obama is Carter on Steroids.

Geochelone on January 31, 2011 at 9:09 PM

yeah really. I wonder when the LAT will ever release Obama’s tape made at that party with Rashid Khalidi.

ted c on January 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Good question mate.

That tape has dropped off everyone’s radar.

Apparently IIRC it was sold to the LA Times and they put it on ice. I suppose it will come out 30 years from now like the Zapruder film which Dan Rather has purchased and kept in a safe for some unknown reason.

There was quite a sizable protest at the LA Times building with lots of picking. There is no question that Obama is a Muslim apologist and sympathizer—No question at all.

Geochelone on January 31, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Ernie, my pet, if that’s all you’re garnering from this discussion, then please go and slap yourself really hard a couple of times.

You really are dense, if this is your best offering. C’mon, ernie, you know you want some good ol’ social justice thrown in the mix, or else what’s the point? Right?

Where are you getting the “self-determination: only for christians” bullshit?

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:33 PM

When I mentioned Iran I meant the hypothetical secular Iran that might have resulted if the 2009 revolution had succeeded.

Fair enough.

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:34 PM

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Conservative conventional wisdom:

Hugo Chavez = dictator, fascist, oppressor, enemy of freedom. We need to oust him ASAP as he is an enemy of his own people.

Hosni Mubarak = none of the above, for some reason. Cool guy, actually; too bad he can’t stick around.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Not fair, conservative also support self-determination for Buddhists.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:37 PM

What else is he supposed to do?

Well, one thing he could do at the very least is come out and announce right now that any government that includes the Muslim Brotherhood in any way will automatically not receive a dime of aid from us. The Muslim Brotherhood might not care, but at least Israel might be reassured that we will absolutely not do business with any new government that includes the MB.

JohnInCA on January 31, 2011 at 9:38 PM

It’s not America’s fault the world hates Israel.

lexhamfox on January 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I feel compelled to ask, dear sir, whose fault is it?

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:38 PM

“The outcome of those elections may be rotten, but it is what it is.”

Gee… glad to know you are so loosey goosey with the outcome. Now that I remember, there were some across the world who were a bit under-caring to the outcome of German elections about 80 years ago. I bet they wish they had the chance back to give every fiber of their being to deeply care about what the outcome of those elections were, as opposed to so easily going with the “whatever” flow of the outcome.

Indy82 on January 31, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Ernie nice straw man.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Saddam Hussein = dictator, fascist, oppressor, enemy of freedom. We need to oust him ASAP as he is an enemy of his own people.

Leftists = “But he keeps the trains running on time!”

Yep, funny how things change.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

So Ernie you were all for Afghanistan and Iraq wars right?

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Where are you getting the “self-determination: only for christians” bullshit?

Ernesto????

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Yep, funny how things change.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Heh

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Conservative conventional wisdom:

Hugo Chavez = dictator, fascist, oppressor, enemy of freedom. We need to oust him ASAP as he is an enemy of his own people.

Hosni Mubarak = none of the above, for some reason. Cool guy, actually; too bad he can’t stick around.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:37 PM

So, you posit that Chavez = Mubarak?

MMMMkay.

Apples do not equal oranges.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

That’s nonsense. Who was it who supported self-determination for the Iraqis? Your typical Democratic Underground commenter?

Or are you of the belief that those 100% election results for Saddam were the real deal?

And the Christian bit is a totally gratuitous strawman, and exposes you as the knee-jerk lefty you truly are.

Dreadnought on January 31, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Invading a country != supporting a revolution.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Ernesto????

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Ernie’s chock full of straw men.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

I forgot to mention Saddam Hussein’s religion, clearly he was a Christian because he came from the Christian bedrock village of Tikrit.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:42 PM

and the relevant differences are…?

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

So Ernie you were all for Afghanistan and Iraq wars right?

Where are you getting the “self-determination: only for christians” bullshit?

Ernesto????

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

There are times when you really crack me up and there are times…. well, your snark is most welcome. Now I’m going to have a beer.

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

That still amounts to “self determination is a natural right (for christians)”. Provide any rationalization you like, you are still essentially favoring dictatorship over freedom; embracing your Hobbesian roots, as conservatives so often do when push comes to shove.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

“Hobbesian roots”? Oh my. I’m favoring one dictatorship that isn’t dreaming of sending out goons with suitcase nukes over one that does. Self-determination is a natural right, if Egyptians want to assert it.

ddrintn on January 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Invading a country != supporting a revolution.
ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

True, so I suppose we could simply the arm the living daylights out of one side.

A few cluster bombs, some FAE bombs, a few thousand anti-personnel mines, a billion rounds of 30mm depleted uranium ammunition and the helo’s to shoot them.

You would be ok with that, I’m sure. You could drink coffee and talk about how you support the brave revolutionaries but keep your hands from getting any icky blood on them.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Hosni Mubarak = none of the above, for some reason. Cool guy, actually; too bad he can’t stick around.

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Nobody said the guy was great. But he helped keep the peace between Egypt and Israel for almost 30 years. That’s worth something.

Has Chavez done anything as constructive as that?

We’ll see how the next “democratic” regime in Egypt does on that count. Somehow I doubt it will be as good.

Dreadnought on January 31, 2011 at 9:48 PM

and the relevant differences are…?

There’s difference in the likley outcome of the removal of both those leaders.

If Mubarak is removed he’ll probably be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood or some comibation of jihadist/secular forces.

Chavez…by some other Venezualan.

If there were no MB and no chance of Egyptians voting for them I’m sure everyone would jump aboard your bandwagon since there would be no reason not to.

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:48 PM

So Ernie you were all for Afghanistan and Iraq wars right?

Where are you getting the “self-determination: only for christians” bullshit?

Ernesto????

Vince on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Good question. Answer it, ernesto. Do you support the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or are you falling back on your Chomsky roots, like you always do when push comes to shove?

ddrintn on January 31, 2011 at 9:48 PM

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:42 PM

and the relevant differences are…?

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Well, the first one that comes to mind is that Chavez spends much of his time denouncing and denigrating our country.

Mubarak spends most of his time just trying to keep all of the factions from boiling over, whereas Chavez has a tight lid on dissent.

Any more questions?

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Then of course we are involved in that little spat over in the Pope’s birthplace of Afghanistan. It used to be run by these really nasty Shinto guys but we kicked them out so we could build churches in Tora Bora.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:51 PM

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:49 PM

The world is really worried that jihadis will fill the power vacuum once Chavez is forced into exile.

/

Christien on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM

By the way, ernesto, why aren’t you spending your time beating Ojesus over the head with your amnesty stick? Seems a little bit hypocritical to me.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Ernie is a pus sy.

CWforFreedom on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM

And have you seen Kurdistan, we didn’t need to invade that joint, they invited us in.

Stupid move on their part though because the U.S. Army immediately started crucifying anyone who wouldn’t stomp on a likeness of Mohammed. It was like a repeat of the ending of “Spartacus”, people dangling from crosses for miles and miles.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I cannot believe how much support dictatorship garners among HA commenters. Its as if the conservative conventional wisdom reads, “self-determination: only for christians”

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

An Atheist’s point of view: I don’t care who votes for what, providing that the outcome is not intended to do me harm. Cross that bridge, and they’ve crossed the Rubicon.

Egypt, under Mubarak, was no threat to me.

OldEnglish on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM

aengus on January 31, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Translation: self determination, only for christians

ernesto on January 31, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2