Obama’s cold-blooded defense of Egyptian regime

Worth reading the entire article that explains why "the billionaire pharaohs of Wall Street instinctively hate the mass revolutionary uprising of the Egyptian workers."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/pers-f08.shtml

Obama’s cold-blooded defense of Egyptian regime
8 February 2011

The Obama administration’s cynical and reactionary policy toward Egypt won telling praise Monday from the right-wing New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Entitled “Obama the realist,” Douthat’s column ostensibly defended Obama from right-wing criticism.

“On nearly every anti-terror front, from detainee policy to drone strikes, the Obama administration has been…maintaining or even expanding the powers that George W. Bush claimed in the aftermath of 9/11,” the column states.

While noting that the administration’s “entire approach to international affairs looks like a continuation of the Condoleezza Rice-Robert Gates phase of the Bush administration,” Douthat adds approvingly that “Obama’s response to the Egyptian crisis has crystallized his entire foreign policy vision.”

Dismissing criticism from the likes of Fox News, he adds: “It’s clear that the administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik.”

more...

or calling it out?

"The upheavals that have gripped Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and smaller cities and towns in this ancient nation of 80 million are not part of some color-coded “revolution,” coordinated between Washington and privileged social layers to oust a regime that is out of sync with US policy and interests..."

Unrec. :thumbsdown:

nt

n/t

nt

If you don't understand this concept, then a political board may not be the best venue for you.

If you don't understand this concept, this is, unfortunately much too often, the perfect venue for you.

What part do you think is made up?

This is absolute crap.

Nothing in what the President has said would equate to "Obama's cold-blooded defense of the Egyptian regime."

I don't know who Bill Van Auken is, but but he's spinning like crazy here and I'd gauge his reliability at about the same level as Beck or Limbaugh.

Worth reading? Hardly.

That's kind of a big hint, isn't it? :fistbump:

Dismiss their rubbish for what it is.

But you have to really separate the wheat from the chaff.

the only rubbish I see is the corporate media repeatedly saying Sulieman is the "vice president"

he's not a vice president, he's a vice dictator / torture Czar, appointed by a dictator

and of course Obama supports him, he's a predatory corporatist, and they always support dictators, Obama's corporate handlers make more money that way.

World Net Daily is way more inaccurate than WSWS

WND would be better compared to the corporate news. All bullship all the time.

repeat the propaganda, the vice president, the vice president, the vice president.

Dismissing criticism from the likes of Fox News, he adds: “It’s clear that the administration’s real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator’s military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman, the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who’s best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.’s rendition program. This isn’t softheaded peacenik dithering. It’s cold-blooded realpolitik.”

If that is not substantially correct then what is the inaccuracy in the statement ?

You post an opinion piece that kinda sorta suggests that Obama might be supporting some of the policies of the current Egyptian leadership, but it says absolutely nothing about him defending the "Egyptian regime".

then by implication he is defending it.

Not much doubt about that.

He's called for a transition FROM this regime to something else. There is no way that his statements could be construed as "supporting the regime."

that he wants Suleiman in charge.

That's torturer and rendition program Suleiman. In other words he wants no change.

see : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=371664&mesg_id=371664

Whether or not he envisions the new VP as being a part of that, he's been very clear that he doesn't support the current regime.

For Egypt's future, there is no evidence at all that he wants "Suleiman in charge."

Omar Suleiman, the new Egyptian vice-president championed by the Obama administration as central to an orderly transition, is a long-time ally of Washington, whose diplomats have repeatedly dubbed him President Hosni Mubarak’s “consigliere”.

Dispatches from the US embassy in Cairo, obtained by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, consistently refer to the one-time general who until recently headed Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, as key to the bilateral relationship.

He is described as a man with “the full confidence of Mubarak” and commended by Margaret Scobey, the current US ambassador, as a “pragmatist with an extremely sharp analytical mind”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3295176-321b-11e0-a820-00144feabdc0.html

The cables are from May 2006 and, yes, he is accurately described as having the "full confidence of Mubarak" and a "pragmatist with an extremely sharp analytical mind".

So?

How do those statements suggest US support or faith in Suleiman?

All I did was to google "does the us favour sulieman" to find that link which obviously worked for me because I couldn't otherwise have cut and pasted that.

Old links are no longer relevant to the current situation, nor to the U.S. government's response.

Leaked cables reveal faith in Suleiman
By Helen Warrell and David Blair in London
Published: February 6 2011 18:26 | Last updated: February 6 2011 18:36

What's changed since Sunday ?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw her weight behind the reform effort launched by Mubarak's handpicked Vice President, Omar Suleiman, saying the government's fragile dialogue with the opposition must be given time to unfold or risk being derailed by radical forces.

"There are forces at work in any society, and particularly one that is facing these kinds of challenges, that will try to derail or overtake the process to pursue their own specific agenda," Clinton told a security conference in Munich.

"Which is why I think it's important to support the transition process announced by the Egyptian Government, actually headed by now Vice President Omar Suleiman."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110205/pl_nm/us_egypt_usa

No U.S. official (including the Secretary of State and the President) has proposed that Egypt should be governed by Mubarak or Suleiman in the future.

if that's what you want to believe.

Transition under the "vice presidents" guidance? That's not change because he's not a vice president, he's a vice dictator appointed by a dictator.

We already know Obama is a predatory corporatist, so this falls right in line with that, maintain the dictatorships, it's better for corporate business.

It's propaganda, over and over again on the TV on the radio, the vice president, the vice president, the vice president.

HE'S NOT A VICE PRESIDENT, HE'S A VICE DICTATOR/ TORTURE CZAR, APPOINTED BY A DICTATOR.

Unrec.

Here's what they think of Obama and Democrats. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml

Fuck them and their :crazy: spew.

Not socialist.

I've noticed plenty of centrists and right-leaning posters here. Unfortunate, but true.

Or liberal.

Rare beasts these days.

This is a bullshit article, pure and simple.

They have never been supportive. It's not a new thing WRT this administration.

As with every political decision it seems.... follow the money here with Egypt. In military aid alone, the US sends
$1 billion in tanks, bombs, planes, etc to Egypt every yr. These instruments of war are manufactured in various states across the US, with Texas claiming the largest share.

Unfortunately, it is in the best economic interest to keep the saber rattling alive and well across the globe.



Does anyone grow tired of this type of relationship with other countries ? Will our position change if/when Egypt elects or adopts a new regime ? What if the Muslim Brotherhood became a valid option for elected leadership ?

We are slippery slopers when it comes to foreign aid.

I know a few folks that constantly link to WSWS. You had better well believe it!

SSDD

Sid

This is stupid.

No responsible world leader wants upheaval anywhere - while revolution may, in the end, be a good thing for the Egyptian people, it is hardly ever good for everyone else.

And its fabricated from wholecloth stories aren't nearly as entertaining.

It was a classic.

why "the billionaire pharaohs of Wall Street instinctively hate the mass revolutionary uprising of the Egyptian workers."

Media pretending all the people want is removal of Mubarak are twisting things. They want the reversal of the regime and everything it did that harmed the people.

No suprise there.

America, wake the fuck up!

.

Until Obama makes the military redistribute all of the world's wealth evenly, WSWS will not rest!!!

Obama evil, evil, evil!!!

I mean the way Obama added troops in IRAQ is terrible ... and look how many detainees he has added to gitmo!!!! He is clearly much worse that Bush!!!

And I love the "right wing critism reference" ... they have nothing but love for Mubarak.

So yes, let's put a GOP President in charge in 2012 ... and let's see what Sec of State john Bolten comes up with.

Geeeze.