Users who Dugg This
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
DirtyFries
-777 Followers
Mik Wilker
1448 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
shivabeach
945 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
kdwarnJan 30, 2011
"It is clear that the Obama administration would like to see democracy take hold in Egypt, but unlike the Bush administration, they aren’t about to meddle with a nation’s right to self-determination."
I don't think that has much to do with it. Reality just won't let them. Or, they in fact are meddling and we just don't know the extent of it. Dems or Repubs - they are at heart still imperialists.
bille3Jan 30, 2011
If they truly were imperialists they would seize this opportunity and rush in with invasion forces and take control claiming Egypt as a new outpost of the "Empire".
No, they are going to sit back and give tacit approval of the Islamic Brotherhood taking control and becoming the new power in Egypt, hoping that will appease the Brotherhood and get us out of their sights.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beamriderJan 31, 2011
The Islamic Brotherhood was caught even more off-guard than Mubarak was. They're not doing this, and so far the people don't seem all that fond of them. They might end up with even less control of the country than they have now.
3the3dude3Jan 31, 2011
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're speculating. Our window into this situation is very small. From what we've been able to see, it's pretty safe to assume that this is not an Islamic revolution. What we have not seen, is the big picture. I'm not sure that the people of Egypt have, either.
If Mubarak falls, who seizes the opportunity? Elections don't hold themselves and there is no obvious transitional figure or group to manage the founding of the new "New Egypt". Short-term probability is a mixture of anarchy and internal jockeying; a civil war with an undetermined number of sides. It would be naive to expect that Islamists won't attempt to exploit this. However, that doesn't mean they would succeed. The only certainty: nobody can confidently predict the long-term outcome, its timeline, and whether it's rewarding or consequential, in nature.
peppermintpigJan 31, 2011
Unrest was sparked by oppression of peoples livelihoods. Assorted grievances and unrest fuels the rest.
peppermintpigJan 31, 2011
Imperialist doesn't exclude black ops. The point is not to be caught manipulating.
dudecoolnameJan 30, 2011
Thank god. I was getting worried with Joe Biden's RIDICULOUS comments that Mubarak was "not a dictator".
Thankfully, our Secretary of State has some intelligence.
jibbityjabJan 31, 2011
Hillary's statements run through the propaganda filter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBuMuzhvYeA
via: http://www.facebook.com/incaseyoumissedit
dudecoolnameJan 31, 2011
Well i would agree with that video, but I at least glad that she doesn't have the nerve to say that Mubarak is "not a dictator"....unbelievable.
matrageJan 31, 2011
Mr. Clinton got it right this time. Way to go man
morrisanthonynalleJan 31, 2011
Congratulations,to Secretary Clinton,for taking the stance which she did.Siding with President Hosni Mubarak,and his past and present policies,would have hurt the people of Egypt,who have had to suffer the injustice of being denied a fair vote in what policies will prevail in their nation.You can`t fault the masses for wanting to disperse rule among the many,than let it reside in the hands of a few,who dictate to all,without mercy.
jdjackson920Jan 31, 2011
shes so dumb.. why would anyone listen.. but i digg it.
TheTruth00Jan 31, 2011
Now she better hope to God that they overthrow the regime.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
why?
TheTruth00Jan 31, 2011
Well if Mubarak pulls though and maintains significant power once the smoke clears, and is a sensitive grudge holding tyrant, could the American-Egypt relationship be compromised?
RichKidChrisJan 31, 2011
it probably could be
pethanksJan 31, 2011
I think that is a nice move by Hilary Clinton.
RichKidChrisJan 31, 2011
yes it sounds promising, but talk is cheap. we(meaning the whole world that's watching) want to see some political muscles being flexed. by that i don't mean the muscles of the mouth, real action!
peppermintpigJan 31, 2011
Political action often involves authoritarian violence.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Oh my. PEOPLE. WTF is this doing on the front page of DIGG when there are plenty of news sources...REAL news sources presenting the facts?
This is no more than... Hillary said nothing! Yay!
So much blogspam, so little time.
And ZERO NEW information.
peppermintpigJan 31, 2011
Did you hear that McCain said Obama was a patriot? That made the news the other day too with dozens of vapid politico analysts chirping in. Digg is a f**king land of authoritarian worshipping zombies.
elcalrissianJan 31, 2011
http://english.aljazeera.net/
Only place so far I've been able to get the real story.
Digg's just full of Blogospam with an agenda about Egypt.
spencerinmotionJan 31, 2011
anybody getting deja vu? the article and it's title are somewhat biased in trying to make a point that because clinton didn't mention mubarak, the obama administration favors him stepping down. this is the same thing that happened with the iranian green movement, the US hasn't actually expressed denouncing the ruling regime. it's ironic that this country was created through a revolution and furthermore, deposed dictators, and now our president can't fully express the support that we should be giving. sure, mubarak is a strong ally in the middle east and keeps israel happy with an arab ally, but i think this is the prime time to give the protesters the real recognition of change they deserve.
RichKidChrisJan 31, 2011
I totally agree. It's a political dance and it seems as though america doesn't want to be the one stepping on any toes this early on.
astalavistadiggJan 31, 2011
yes right.....come on hillary is playing her game.
This people have all the oil in the world and the live in poverty for years now...wake up someone is taking advantage of what belongs to them.....
help for this people is not America to choose but let them choose
kasha34Jan 31, 2011
Egypt has oil?
astalavistadiggJan 31, 2011
yes they have oil as well. and our goverment all over the worlds wants to decide who will take it out.America cant decide for everyone.
Egypt has the suez canal the connection by sea. But no america decides what will happen....how on earth is that possible it belongs to egyptttt
i hope we all learn from our mistakes some day
kasha34Jan 31, 2011
Thank you, I didn't now Egypt had any oil. And according to Wikipedia, they DO produce it. And even refine it.
So why do you say that "america decides what will happen"?
astalavistadiggFeb 1, 2011
all the oil in the near countries is exploided by american companies mostly...they have their interest in the area ( maybe they have more than the american gov)
You will offcourse know the suez canal wich for years American gov has conflicted with egypt arguing and finally achieving that money from the income of the canal goes to america as well. Why its on egyptian land.
The egyptians had less profit than all the others.
Lets take America for example one day China is becoming the No 1 power in the world (sooner than i expected ) and the companies that control china's gov decide to push to the limit in order money from Americas oil exports goes to china ...You will say why its American oil why china takes a share.
this Share could be given to american citizens i dont know how but it could make your life easier instead of going into fat china boss pocket.
excuse me for arguing i am not American and i think i see it with no intension on taking any side than the one's who is cheated right now ,
and now egyptian citizen are the ones.
excuse my spelling as well.
regards
bagos1Jan 31, 2011
She needs a new hairdresser...
it aint workin girl
3the3dude3Jan 31, 2011
Apparently, Politicus doesn't understand the nuances of foreign policy.
To more accurately paraphrase SecState: Clinton said that we'd like to see a transition toward democracy that is orderly, via the proper steps. When questioned whether Islamic extremists might fill the void left by a Mubarak collapse, Clinton doubled-down, saying that we do not want a void, at all. Furthermore, Clinton stated that we definitely don't want to see chaos. We'd like to see the people of Egypt to be able to air their grievances without burning Egypt down.
Translation: The US recognizes the legitimacy of the Mubarak regime and its authority to govern Egypt. Come September, we want a genuinely fair election. We do not support state suppression of citizen protest. We do not support looting and destruction as a means of protest.
The Obama Administration has wisely walked a very thin line on this one. Yes, I'm complimenting the Obama Administration. They've endorsed Mubarak's authority, while disapproving of its abuses against the people. Unlike Iran, Egypt, under Mubarak, has been a reliable ally to America and our interests. A descent into anarchy, which is exactly what the collapse of Cairo would entail, is not in our best interest.
While reading between the lines, Politicus found the omission it wanted but not the one that counts: At no point, has the State Department expressed a desire to see Mubarak go. We've endorsed an orderly transition to democracy and the orderly (assumed) transition of its outcome. Nothing less. Nothing more.
peppermintpigJan 31, 2011
Hillary should mind her own business and admit to her criminal espionage activities.
kasha34Jan 31, 2011
Doesn't matter who or what started this. The jihadis will snatch it away. This happens a lot with revolutions.
bille3Feb 3, 2011
Indeed. They just start up a big advertising campaign about how they will step in and give the people a better life and the people fall for it and vote for the jihadist candidates. Just how Hamas came to power, by being given that power.
kasha34Feb 3, 2011
Well, sometimes it's through elections. Sometimes revolutions are just snatched away. Or sometimes it's just bait-and-switch.
Think Russia, China, Cuba, Germany (Third Reich), Iran.
awoodbyJan 31, 2011
Hahah not supporting the dictator TODAY, but for the last 23 years...
"From the Camp David peace accords in 1978 until 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available), the United States has subsidized Egypt's armed forces with over $38 billion worth of aid. Egypt receives about $2 billion annually--$1.3 billion in foreign military financing and about $815 million in economic support fund assistance --making it the second largest regular recipient of conventional U.S. military and economic aid, after Israel"
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm
roofviewFeb 1, 2011
The Administration is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Egypt. The region is extremely important and the US has backed Mubarak for decades. Sooner rather than later they are going to have to get off the fence and support the move towards democracy. The soft landing they are hoping for may not be possible because Mubarak the nose gear won't go down easy.
warthog258Feb 3, 2011
hillary knows. she is more than capable of being President. 2016 ?
bille3Feb 3, 2011
Maybe she will step up to replace a marginally favorable Obama next year. No need to wait four and half years.
She would be tougher to beat than Obama by any candidate no matter what party they come out of, it maybe the democrats only good chance to hold onto the oval office.