If the long-term goal is Democracy, then that is all very well because it has to be sacrificed to the short-term, namely support for the kind of Pharonic State embodied by Mubarak. Nothing more is on offer. No wonder that a "Washington Middle East hand" told The Cable, "[Wisner's] the exact wrong person to send. He is an apologist for Mubarak." But this is a wrong view. Wisner is just the exact person to send to protect the short-term, and so only-term, interests of Washington. The long-term has been set aside.There's more at the link, but this is pretty damning:
I first wrote about Wisner in 1997 when he joined the board of directors of Enron Corporation. Where Wisner had been, to Manila and New Delhi, Enron followed. As one of his staffers said, "if anybody asked the CIA to help promote US business in India, it was probably Frank." Without the CIA and the muscle of the US government, it is unlikely that the Subic Bay power station deal or the Dabhol deal would have gone to Enron.Prashad concludes:
Wisner urged Mubarak to concede. It is not enough. More is being asked for. Today, Mubarak's supporters have come out with bats in hand, ready for a fight. This has probably also been sanctioned in that private meeting. It is what one expects of Empire's bagman.More about those "Mubarak supporters" proposing the ""win-win" of allowing the dictator to remain in power for nine more months:
However, other Egyptians said they believed that Mr Mubarak's offer could be a suitable compromise.Some of them might genuinely be the sort of people who would side with harper in Canada against coalition "coups," which is to say, ignorant or not very bright people. But remember too, that Mubarak has a police force of about 250,000 members. They have family and they have friends. If they're crooked cops and etc., they have dependents and clients whose bread is buttered by the Mubarak corruption. Of course he can fill the streets with these people and call them his supporters!
Omneya Okasha, a resident from Alexandria, told the BBC she believed that sudden change could lead to "more drastic consequences".
"I find this a stable solution something that suits both sides - a win-win situation."
But by quietly siding with Mubarak, and forcing the people of Egypt to have to fight, Obama has new blood on his hands. And our political culture is so thoroughly debased that people will still be talking about the [non-existent] blood on Julian Assange's hands, and not Obama's contemptible betrayal of democracy.
7 comments:
I think Mubarak may have just forced Obama's hand. The pro-Mubarak protesters have now been exposed as Mubarak's own thugs released on the legitimate protesters. They've apparently beaten Anderson Cooper, his CNN crew and many other foreign reporters. It's said Mubarak's thugs on hunting down Al Jazeera correspondents.
Everything that's happening today is putting the lie to every assurance Mubarak made yesterday. In a way that's a relief that he's proven the claims the protesters have been making in arguing he has to go, now.
UN Sec. Gen. Ban is also saying "now." There's word the White House is saying when they called for the beginning of an orderly transition yesterday, they meant yesterday.
Mound of Sound,
I've got my doubts. Obama has been waist-deep in coups and attempted coups in Latin America. He's tolerating death squads in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
It's possible that the process of the "orderly transition" was really supposed to end as late as September, when all the unruly elements had been dealt with and some other "dependable" servants installed.
Maybe Mubarak was given one last kick at the can today and if he loses, then it's a quick helicopter ride to Saudi Arabia.
It's all speculation but decades of US behaviour precedes them. Sure, once in a while, they've helped a despot puppet read the writing on the wall (Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto, come to mind) but they generally back their puppets until the last minute.
Geez. Rented muscle beating up on journos, even tame CNN meat puppets? That's whacking material in Washington.
...people will still be talking about the [non-existent] blood on Julian Assange's hands, and not Obama's contemptible betrayal of democracy...
...perhaps because people have gotten so used to Obama's contemptible betrayal of democracy.
Say, remind me—was it Obama who committed to closing Gitmo immediately upon assuming office? And is he the guy who's still using pilotless drones even though they tend to grind up villages full of civilians and even though Afghan and Pakistani authorities have begged him to stop doing so? Why, yes it was and is.
Obama's a degenerate fraud. Makes Reagan look like Rosa Luxemburg.
OB,
It reminds me of when that Somoza National Guardsman killed a US reporter in the dying days of the Somoza regime. It turned pretty much everyone against them.
Who knows what Obama is saying in private?
He sent the guy whose father helped overthrow Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s to help Mubarak today.
But maybe with Mubarak, it's as it was with Somoza and Marcos and Suharto. All three of those guys had managed to piss-off even the ruling elites, including the military. Then the US pats itself on the back for sending their stooges into genteel retirement.
Hi Sir Francis,
Long time no read you here. Yeah. Obama vs. Reagan. Reagan had the excuse of being a little simple when first elected and entering senility when he left office.
But maybe with Mubarak, it's as it was with Somoza and Marcos and Suharto.
...and Batista, and Noriega, and so on.
The U.S. is just waiting for things to shake themselves out. They need to locate a leader or potential leader who can replace Mubarak. Until then, they need Mubarak's repressive apparatus to keep functioning relatively intact.
Rest assured, though, that once the White House identifies a sufficiently ruthless Israel-friendly Egyptian thug to take over from ol’ Mubie, they'll happily stand by and watch their erstwhile lickspittle take the dildo of karma right up the ass.
Post a Comment