It all started with president Obama's speech in Cairo

"On June 9th 2009 President Obama gave a speech in Cairo calling for, among other things, democratic reforms in the Arab world. At the time the speech was seen as a sort of first step in a long journey of healing old the broken relationship between the United States and Middle Eastern countries. No one at the time dreamed that 18 months later the people of Egypt would be demonstrating in the streets of Cairo to demand the end of an autocratic regime. Below one can see the relevant portion of President Obama’s Cairo speech, which can be read in an entirely different light given the events of the last week. In many ways the Egyptian people seemed to have answered President Obama’s call".

Continue reading on Examiner.com: A look back at President Obama's Cairo speech in light of Egypt protests (Video) - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/a-look-back-at-president-obama-s-cairo-speech-light-of-egypt-protests-video#ixzz1Cj1byDNe




Brian Williams, last night on The Last Word: Obama’s Cairo speech is in the DNA of the Egyptian revolt

http://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/tuesday-mishmash/#comment-24083#comment-24083

The people of the Middle East have been hearing fine words from American presidents for decades. This thing started in Tunisia.

and that Iran's protest from June of 2009 were ignited by a man lighting himself on fire in Tunisia a couple of weeks ago. This helps their world view that Pres. Obama ain't worth a damn, even when he is!

Saying "it all started with Obama's speech" is as specious as crediting Reagan with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nice strawman, though.

Contribution != inception

just like Pres. Obama didn't have to give a televised speech about Democracy in Cairo.....
but he did.

Just like the Egyptian Army which works closely with our Military didn't have to say they
wouldn't shoot Egyptian Civilians protesting, but they did.

You can believe it had something to do only with other things, but I suggest that
you would be incorrect in that belief.

Yes, I can believe both those things, and many other things - and, in fact, I do. What I, and apparently many others who've posted here, DON'T believe is the OP's headline stating that "IT ALL STARTED WITH Obama's speech."

Again, Obama's speech may (or may not) have contributed to events since 1/25 but NOBODY can seriously suggest that it started the ball rolling.

and so does the OP. You can't prove otherwise, and neither can he.

I look at this chart, and for me, it doesn't matter which came first,
the speech or the willingness for Muslims to peacefully get out into the
streets and demand change.





A quote from that Cairo speech....
"The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There’s so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.“

at least to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, starting here

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/26/egypt-anti-government-protests-have-deep-roots/
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133398285/the-root-the-sparks-behind-the-egypt-protests
http://dukeupress.typepad.com/dukeupresslog/2011/01/guest-post-abdeslam-maghraoui-on-the-roots-of-the-egyptian-protests.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201113113211680738.html
http://www.good.is/post/what-s-behind-the-egyptian-protests-if-you-said-twitter-the-daily-show-laughs-at-you/

So, we have respected, knowledgeable media sources, academic experts, most posters in this thread and friggin' Jon Stewart in one corner, citing the FACTS leading up to this (and only one reference to the Cairo speech, saying exactly what I did) - and in the other corner???

Remember, fact != opinion.

And just out of curiosity, how does a 45% approval rating of Egyptians' opinion of the US a year ago even remotely translate into evidence of Obama's Cairo speech nearly *two* years ago spurring a political revolution? And your underline text... so we should actually credit The Beatles for this?

all of the sudden turned in to streetwide peaceful protests.

"Egyptian sentiment toward the United States has improved dramatically since the survey began. In 2007, just 11 percent of Egyptians said they viewed the United States as having a “mostly positive” influence, versus 59 percent who said it had a “mostly negative” influence. The numbers were even worse the next year: 16 percent positive, but 73 percent negative.

The election of President Obama created a major change in opinion, however. In 2009, positive opinions about the United States rose to 40 percent against 48 percent negative. And last year — the first survey conducted after Mr. Obama’s well-received June 2009 speech in Cairo — positive opinions became the plurality, at 45 percent, against 29 percent negative views"
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/


You may not like it or agree with it...but Pres. Obama was instrumental in bringing change with his foreign policy approach.

if you claim that a speech over 18 months ago "all of a sudden turned into streetwide peaceful protests."

The sources I linked to specifically state that a / the primary catalyst was Tunisia.

NPR: The current turmoil was sparked, in part, by the revolt that forced Tunisia's reviled, longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to flee into exile in Saudi Arabia earlier this month

Abdeslam Maghraoui, Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University: In sum, anger about deteriorating social conditions and Mubarak’s iron-fist rule has been smoldering for decades. What distinguishes the current social and political upheaval from past ones is a changing political psychology. The walls of fear that in the past prevented sustained, collective action seem to have crumbled with Tunisia’s successful revolution.

AJE: The unrest, inspired by the revolt that toppled Tunisia's leader, "does raise political risks," said Eric Fine, a portfolio manager in New York who helps Van Eck Associates Corp. oversee $3 billion in emerging-market assets.


I could go on but it's obvious that I'm just wasting my time. So, just to be a dick, and as much as I hate to do it, I'll leave this here:
was this a catalyst, too?

ps - you're trying to move the goalposts again with this statement: You may not like it or agree with it (there's that strawman again) ...but Pres. Obama was instrumental in bringing change with his foreign policy approach.
Sure he brought change... in opinion of the US - has nothing to do with your defense of the assertion that "IT ALL STARTED with Obama's speech."

and yet it still doesn't answer why the manner of protest was of peaceful means.

I suggest that if you haven't yet, you read the text of the Cairo speech.

As to why something done 18 months ago might have an effect now,
in Iran, the effect was rather speedy.

No, I don't believe that the Cairo Speech was the only reason folks came out in the streets,
and are demanding new leadership, human rights, and a sharing of the wealth......
But I do believe that this speech and Obama's approach it is having a lasting influence,
and it's ok if you don't.

This is the third repetition of your strawman that I don't believe that Obama's speech had any impact - even after I specifically stated otherwise.

You're also trying to move the goalposts again - you're conflating "Obama having an influence" with "IT ALL STARTED WITH Obama's speech."

I have read it, I've even watched it. And I liked it. I still don't believe that IT STARTED the protests, as you've defended repeatedly. BTW, did you read Condi's speech that I linked above? She said a lot of the same things. :evilgrin:

We're talking about Egypt, not Iran. Again, you pooh-pooh 30 the impact of 30 years of oppression - how is 18 months immediate?

And if the "opinion" of the some of the most knowledgeable experts on the region - people who've devoted their adult lives to understanding what's going on over there - aren't good enough for you to differentiate between their validity and the opinion of an individual who claims "IT ALL STARTED WITH Obama's Cairo speech" then we really don't have anything else to discuss.

I'm just not willing to poopoo that notion while giving credit only to the past 30 years.
Perhaps it's coincidental, but again, experts on the region aren't necessarily stating that
Pres. Obama did not have influence on this.....

Hence, strawman.

NOBODY is saying that Obama had *zero* influence, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you - in fact, most are saying the same thing I am - that sure, it likely had an influence but was NOT the catalyst, yet you keep arguing against that point. Why is that?

As for this "Strawman" overuse of yours, give it a rest.
I enjoy debating, but I'm not into attempting to insist
that one sees it my way or there's a problem.

I welcome your view of things, and hope that you now have more information
than when you started responding within this op. I know that I do.

See you around. :hi:

HOWEVER, again - nobody has said that Obama's speech had zero impact - just calling BS on the OP's assertion that it was the root cause. But deep down, I think you knew that.

You've been arguing in virtually every post in our conversation against a point nobody has been making. That's the definition of strawman, so I'll respectfully disagree w/you about its overuse.

And thanks - I do have more information - had completely put Condi and the BA out of my mind!

Thanks for the interesting afternoon - hope your evening is even more enjoyable! :hi:

failure of the U.S. to stand up for the people of Etypt. I've seen it now several times, almost word for word.

What an insult to the one person who gave his life while this Government stood by in silence, in Tunisia, the man who inspired the Tunisian revolt, which in turn inspired the Egytian revolt, when in one final act of despair and defiance, he set himself on fire, and with that act, became the spark that lit the fire in his country.

It is sickening that he is not even mentioned in this country and that people would try to link a speech which was nothing but words to these two revolutions which have taken the lives of so many.

Whoever is trying to steal the credit from those who gave their lives and save the reputation of the U.S. who contributed more to the suffering of those people, in the months since that speech, as they continued to support the dictator and ignored the revolt in Tunisia, than any other factor, must not have been listening to the people. Or reading the signs. Or they think WE have not been paying attention.

If Mubarak and Ben Ali had succeeded in suppressing those demonstrations we know and the people there know, that both those dictators would have continued to receive financial and public support from this government.

This particular spin is insulting to say the least, not only to the two men, both now dead, who actually set these two revolutions in motion.

This government did everything it could to try to keep both dictators in power.

Sickening to read this, quite frankly.

some people claiming that it was Pres Obama's speech that started all this and others that are saying Americans have contributed more to the wretched situation in Egypt than anyone else and we've done everything we could to keep Mubarek in power. How about this? This country has nothing to do with what's going on in Egypt. The people there have had enough and are protesting against their government for change? How about it's as simple as that?

right up the present, despite the knowledge of his murderous, torturing regime's crimes against its people.

Sorry, if you are in league with a crook, if you buy his weapons for him knowing how he is going to use them, you don't get off the hook when his victims try to fight back. You either apologize for empowering and encouraging him and take a stand WITH the victims, or you remain an accessory.

Where does the U.S. stand now that they see the determination of the people to rid themselves of our 'friend and ally', funded by us to buy weapons to use against them?

No one seems to be able to figure that out.

But we know that U.S. policy towards supporting both Mubarak and Ben Ali, among a number of other dictators we are funding right now, did not change one bit after the speech given by Obama, who some are claiming, ridiculously, was the catalyst for this uprising.

The speech did provide some hope that maybe the U.S. was about to change its ways. But when it did not do that, I suppose you could say that the people gave up on the U.S. and see them as the collaborators they always have been and those words of hope, meant nothing.

I doubt very much that the US policy is on the minds of anyone in that square right now. They're doing what's good for them like we do what's good for us - that's what governments are SUPPOSED to do. This American-centric attitude on both sides of this argument are bizarre.

Without the support from the U.S., they would never have lasted.

Your are wrong too that the U.S. is not on the minds of the people being terrorized and murdered in Tahrir Square right now. Many of them have stated that they are very, very angry at the U.S. for its continuing financial support for the man who has ordered his thugs to slaughter them.

In interviews with reporters, they have railed against the U.S. who many blame for the plight of their country, and rightly so.

OUR focus now needs to be on what we do about OUR government. We are supporting, eg, the vicious, brutal, criminal regime in Uzbekistan led by Karamov. His people have been mowed down for trying to demonstrate against his brutality.

One British Diplomat, a man of conscience, quit his job after witnessing what was going on in that country.

How do you explain this? When will the U.S. side with the people of Uzbekistan? We do nothing to stop these abuses UNTIL the people finally decide they would rather die, than live under such brutal circumstances.

We are responsible for what this government does. We are to blame for what is happening in Egypt and Tunisia and Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, and everywhere else we are propping up dictators.

One protest sign from Egypt said 'America, no, we do not hate you for your freedoms, we hate that YOU HATE OUR FREEDOMS"

Plenty of signs showing that the people fully understand that the U.S.'s support for Mubarak, led to the deaths and torture of so many of their citizens over the years.

I don't know why you find it hard to admit our role. It's not a nice thing to have to admit to, but before it can be stopped, it has to be acknowledged.

I'm well aware of our role in Egypt over the years. I object to this America-centric attitude that holds us as either heroes or goats every time something happens in the world. We are not the center of the universe. One sign? Big fucking deal.

Decades of repression and the lack of opportunity for young people are major factors. I believe the latter is the most important aspect. Obama's election certainly had an effect of regaining some credibility throughout the world, but certainly not enough to spark a revolution. This would be like attributing Reagan with bringing the wall down in Berlin. They just happen to be coincidental events. Many had called for it demolition and many died trying to cross over it. It was the intolerable conditions and lack of hope that eventually brought about its destruction.

I believe that there is a lesson to be learned that could very well be in our future. If the young people get to the point of desperation about the lack of opportunity for a future, you may very well see the same thing take place right here in our nation. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were concepts that our Forefathers were well acquainted with as being the basis of a stable society. As Aristotle so poignantly expressed some 2400 years ago the pursuit of happiness is the first ordered goal of every rational human being. When a society fails to provide the resources for their youth to pursue this universal need, it will implode. Aristotle observed that as the wealth and power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands the pursuit of happiness for the majority diminishes to the point of desperation creating a situation that can only result in eventual revolt.

This is insulting to the people in the streets who are trying to change their own destiny.

I'm sure the Egyptian people have wanted freedom forever and they are the ones who are putting their lives on the line and making it happen. But that doesn't mean they can't use a little support from other countries, especially the world power. President Obama gave a good speech that probably helped in some way. At the very least, the fact that he was encouraging democracy at least told them that the U.S. wouldn't fight against them seeking democracy. God knows if it were Bush he'd probably have our military over there controlling the crowds!

Why is it so hard for some people to give President Obama a little credit now and then.

And please....the Egyptian people have suffered insults that we can't even imagine. They aren't egotistical Americans.

saying "it all started" with that speech is a little credit? No,that's giving Obama all the credit.

but of course they would give him no credit.

People talking about what he should say and do - making him responsible for it - suddenly are silent if there is an equal stretch to give him credit for something.

is the hero who caused the sea change that is happening across the Arab world. To try to take that credit and give it an American president whose State Dept's coddling of Mubarak is clear in the Wikeleaks cables SINCE THAT SPEECH is absolutely an insult to that man, his family, his country who rose up in anger after his death and started the revolution in Tunisia that inspired the revolution in Egypt and elsewhere.

Obama's speech has been referred to over and over again by the people of both those countries, in anger! It gave them FALSE HOPE is what they have said. But nothing changed for them and the cables show that nothing was going to change.

As the first comment said 'it is horseshit' to try to excuse this government for ignoring the brutality of these two dictators. And if the people themselves had not had enough, nothing would have changed, a fact pointed out by the protesters in both countries over and over again.

Now, if Obama is so inspiring why are we still financing Karamov of Uzbekistan?? Do we wait for those unfortunate people to try once again to overthrow THEIR dictator, get shot down in the streets, AGAIN, and then claim it was Obama's speech that inspired them?

Has he said anything about the genocide and the torture and the brutality of that THAT dictator as we continue to send him millions and millions of dollars? I can't wait until we see the next uprising over there. They tend to go unnoticed and we tend to keep financing the criminal.

Please, no one is buying this, I doubt even Obama himself would want to take false credit if he has any conscience at all.

Read the Wikileaks Egypt cables if you want to know why that speech meant nothing to those who suffered under our 'friends and allies' as Obama was calling them not so long ago.

I think that speech was a seed for younger Egyptians. Yes, they are the force behind their own revolution but every revolution has seeds that are planted to help it on its way. His speech may have merely watered the seeds already planted but from what I'm seeing on Twitter, that speech DID have an impact and his subtle condemnation is disappointing many an Egyptian.

What I'm waiting to see is the Iranian people not wanting to be outdone by the Egyptians,
and try again to get rid of their Iron fisted leaders. In Obama not meddling in the Egyptian
protest against the Egyptian Government by everyday Egyptians, in the long view, it is the better choice for Pres. Obama, in terms of effectiveness in a long run.

to understand what caused these two revolutions. The speech may have had some effect, but not in the way you would like to believe. After raising the hopes of the people this administration, and it's clear in the Wikileaks cables, bent over backwards to keep Mubarak on their side. It is sickening to read those cables considering what was happening in Tunisia and Egypt at the time.

Please, do not insult the intelligence of people around the world. The U.S. wanted Mubarak in power which is why this president still has not condemned his brutality and corruption and crimes against his own people.

The only way that speech might have hand any affect at all would be that after seeing nothing but support for the dictators even after all those nice words, the people realized they could not count on this president to do anything different than any other U.S. president had done to stop the abuse.

But the man who really is responsible for both revolutions, is completely unknown in this country. The absence of any mention of him in this piece of propaganda, the second by someone who is well known for her blind loyalty to this administration, is truly an insult. He gave his life which, under the U.S. supported dictator of his country, was not worth living.

Please think before trying to spin this. The U.S. called Mubarak 'a friend and an ally as late as last week, and the VP made the incredible statement that Mubarak was not a dictator, a real slap in the face to those risking their lives on the streets.

Hundreds of signs asking this country to 'go away' telling us that 'words mean nothing' coming from the U.S. show that the protesters at least know the facts, they suffered under the 'friend and ally, not a dictator' for the past 30 years with no sign of anything changing despite all the nice words, until THEY realized they had to end it themselves.

Over the past week, protesters in both countries were furious with this administration. They expected nothing from Bush but they were given hope, which turned out to mean nothing, by this president.

You need to do some research, start reading those cables which the world has now read, and then try to claim that this president did anything to stop the abuses of those dictators, or showed any sign of changing U.S. policy towards the Arab World. The facts speak for themselves.

Doesn't matter what he does or does not do. He's still going to get crap from somebody. That's why the OP can say this, too. If there are people who want to blame him for everything, people who want to credit him for everything are just as reasonable.

Violence begets more violence which can lead to unnecessary killings and the such. Obama has not said anything that would derail or condemn the need for change. He just asks that people don't use violence to do it, since that may not lead to the end they want and for many---death could be the response. I think that's a legitimate statement.

I was referring to his subtle condemnation of Mubarak.

they were not violent, but Obama, whenever the perpetrators of crimes that this govt. support are finally exposed, has a habit of dragging out the old moral equivalency tactic. Dimish the guilt of your criminal friends, since you cannot deny it anymore, by claiming there are two equally guilty parties. That's like saying in a rape case that, while we know the rapist did wrong, it might have been better if the woman had not gone to a party alone wearing a short skirt.

The protesters were peaceful. They are extremely intelligent people, they did not want violence, they brought their families to the rallies, their babies. They knew the world was watching and they did not want to give Mubarak any excuses.

To wave a finger at the victims, peaceful victims, to try to make everyone equally guilty, certainly is an insult and 'false'. He wrongly implied something that was not true. Not to mention how pedantic it sounds. The world doesn't need an American Sunday School Teacher in order to figure things out. In fact, our Government is the cause of many of the problems in this world. We are not in a position to be lecturing anyone.

I don't believe that the Egyptian youth needed to be inspired by some politician's canned speech.

That's pretty unreasonable behavior.

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

the President did indeed give a highly publicized speech in Cairo, something he didn't have to do, and more people in the middle east intently listened to that speech than you care to know about.





http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/President+Barack+Obama+Makes+Key+Speech+Cairo+-QSeP-ACocml.jpg








You may not like it, and you might prefer to believe that folks in Iran, Tunisia and Egypt
just spontaneously got out in the streets for peaceful protest after 30 years all of the sudden.....and that it all started with one man lighting himself on fire in Tunisia (although Iran's demonstrations came days after Obama's speech and Tunisia was just a few weeks ago)....but I suggest that they were inspired, and the egyptian army guaranteeing not to shoot them was also no accident.


and if one were to study the approval rating of the US since Obama took office, and since that speech, you'd find that this administration has done more to facilitate these protests than you'd care to admit.





January 31, 2011, 9:33 am
Poll: Egyptian Public’s Views Toward United States Are Much Improved
By NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/

But you may ignore the facts, and continue to believe that Egyptians are insulted.....
if it helps your cause.

continuously said over the past several months.

The man who inspired both revolutions gave his life, in despair and defiance of the dictator we were still supporting, despite the beautiful, hopeful speech, last December. His death was the reason for the Tunisian Revolution which was watched by the people of Egypt who also had a martyr whose death apparently went unnoticed by Washington, last June. And they too, inspired by the Tunisian people, decided that they were on their own and it was up to them to rid themselves of Mubarak, because as they have said over and over again, the U.S. was going to continue to support him, and indeed as late as the beginning of the Egytian revolution, this president was still calling Mubarak a 'friend and an ally' to the disgust of the people of both countries.

Denying facts doesn't change them. If Mubarak had managed to survive this uprising, which he has before, this administration would still be calling him a 'friend'.

both of them talk about the Cairo speech, but neither of them makes the extreme claim in the thread title that "it all started" with that speech.

I would say that it all started with the last 30 years of increasingly oppressive one-man rule and that Tunisia was the tipping point. Obama's speech likely did help signal both Tunisia and Egypt that the U.S. was not going to continue to back dictators - but "it all started with Obama" - No.

Also, the President has created a global atmosphere that tells the Egyptian people that the US will NOT support Mubarak regardless of the situation. His less-than fully supportive of Mubarak words Friday night may have had as much impact as the Cairo speech itself.

One can move mountains and cause entire societies to transform, the other can't get any sane HCR done.

And the way he rolled over on 'tax cuts for the rich' was just short of miraculous.

Cause I can't find anything that proves they didn't have the votes. Every thing I have found shows that they almost certainly had the 50 votes needed to pass a public option, if not 51.

http://www.truth-out.org/we-have-51-senate-votes-public-option-adam-green-ed-schultz57665
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/15/liberals-attack-pelosi-over-public-option-but-are-their-facts-r/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

Obama and Pelosi said they didn't think they had the votes, but didn't provide any proof. More giving up by our strong President. No thanks.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/obama-tells-liberals-public-option-doesnt-have-votes/

Thanks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-options-last-s_n_495383.html

Certainly close enough to try. But not with this Democratic party.

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

Landrieu, Lincoln, and Lieberman is three. That left 6 others. Whose choosing and picking their information?

Why not let all tax cuts expire, and then create a new bill to cut taxes for just the middle class? Is that not possible?

The Messiah will come eventually.

No President has the power to "get sane HCR done" per your specifications. See the Constitution.

Societies have to transform themselves.

Oh and the part above giving "the people" credit? Where's their leader? You mean they can't change their society unless they have one person to follow?

(Er, even MORE crazy!)

Can we hope to hear some prominent people using this talking point in the media soon?

I think Obama did a good job.

I've been railing, quite hard, at people trying to co-opt the Egyptian protests to justify having them in the US, and I feel the same way abou trying to take credit for getting the people out on the street in the first place.

But anything is possible I guess.

it was the prime mover-Mubarak and 30 years of tyranny might have had a lot to do with that.

mark

This must be the new talking point. Another thread says he's a prophet to the Egyptian people. You certainly have an...interesting way of interpreting things.

But...they...he said...but...they were not listening...he has no control over...

:cry:

You've got the fall of the Soviet Union! :evilgrin:

exact 'take' on something, you know it came from a think tank somewhere. We are not as naive as we used to be :-)

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

no matter what, unless one is an internet critic....sitting in the comfort of one's home
directing the traffic on Wednesday about Monday's activities in a country a world away.

Hobnobbing with dictators and despots. Sending them money. Supporting them. When Mubarak comes out on top, he'll be right there with him.

I'm lost... the goalpost has wheels.

Among other things.

That happened early this morning.

Opening fire on whom? The poor slobs who took his money and started fighting their own brothers? Mubarak? Yeah, that's worked so well in the past.

No cowboy boots, no saber rattling. We can't allow the BushCo mentality to prevail.

I hope we've learned something with the murder of Saddam Hussein... had there been an actual plan to remove him and put someone in that was chosen by the people, we'd all be a lot better off right now. That said, who would you want to take Mubarak's place if we murder him?

And how do you "put someone in that was chosen by the people"?

"All aid immediately yanked upon the government opening fire."

I said, opening fire upon whom? And I made a few guesses that I thought would be obvious. Maybe you should explain what you meant by that.