News Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship Or does he ?

[russ_watters]

Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship... Or does he...?

"I don't think that we consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy," Obama said Wednesday in an interview with the Spanish language network Telemundo. "They are a new government that is trying to find its way," he said. "They were democratically elected."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/what-to-call-egypts-relationship-with-the-u-s/?hpt=hp_t2

But...

"The president, in diplomatic and legal terms, was speaking correctly." Carney said. "We do not have an alliance treaty with Egypt. Ally is a legal term of art. As I said, we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, like we do, for example, with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is a long-standing and close partner of the United States."

But it was only in April when Carney referred to Egypt as an "important ally" of the United States during a briefing with reporters at the White House.

And when pressed about Obama's comments on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland conceded the United States still referred to Egypt as a major non-NATO ally – a designation given to certain countries outside the Atlantic alliance that maintain a robust relationship with the U.S. military.

A cynical person might say Obama was lying, since official US policy is his and he directly contradicted it. Considering the treatment Romney has been getting, I'd consider that fair turnabout. A charitable person might say he was coyly announcing a change in official position. Or that it really was just a simple misspeak (didn't actually mean what he said). I think, whether he meant to say it or not, it represents a truth: Egypt doesn't have our back, even if official policy is that we consider that they do.

As can be seen from the CNN article, though, this one is being treated charitably by the media, a consideration not granted to Romney.

 

[Evo]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/what-to-call-egypts-relationship-with-the-u-s/?hpt=hp_t2

But... A cynical person might say Obama was lying, since official US policy is his and he directly contradicted it.

What policy did he contradict?

 

[russ_watters]

What policy did he contradict?

The state department's statements I quoted/paraphrased that say Egypt is our ally. That last line is a paraphrase, but it is an explicit repudiation:

Obama: "I don't think that we consider them an ally..."
DOS paraphrase: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland conceded the United States still referred to Egypt as a major non-NATO ally

 

[Evo]

The state department's statements I quoted/paraphrased that say Egypt is our ally. That last line is a paraphrase, but it is an explicit repudiation:

Obama: "I don't think that we consider them an ally..."
DOS paraphrase: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland conceded the United States still referred to Egypt as a major non-NATO ally

I agree, he goofed. Sounds like he might have accidently let the rabbit out of the hat a bit there on what's going on behind the scenes? IMO. Right now the new Government of Egypt is still an "unknown".

President Barack Obama says he will decide whether Egypt is an ally or an enemy of the United States in part according to the way the fledgling government in Cairo responds to the violent assault on the American Embassy there, which happened on Monday.

"Certainly in this situation what we're going to expect is that they are responsive to our insistence that our embassy is protected, our personnel is protected," Obama said. "And if they take actions that indicate they're not taking responsibilities, as all other countries do where we have embassies, I think that's going to be a real big problem."

The president—his handling of the so-called "Arab Spring" under fresh scrutiny after attacks on American diplomatic posts in Egypt, Libya and Yemen—had been asked by Telemundo whether he sees Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's government as an ally.

"I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy. They're a new government that is trying to find its way," Obama replied in what, by the standards of diplomatic talk, amounted to a blunt warning.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-warns-egypt-ally-enemy-140958144--election.html

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, he goofed.

Pretty big goof, isn't it, to say someone isn't an ally when they are? Particularly considering the tension in the relationship.

Sounds like he might have accidently let the rabbit out of the hat a bit there on what's going on behind the scenes?

Perhaps.

By the way, is a "goof" automatically assumed to be a lie? Should I change the title of the thread to be more accurate?

 

[Evo]

Pretty big goof, isn't it, to say someone isn't an ally when they are? Particularly considering the tension in the relationship. Perhaps.

By the way, is a "goof" automatically assumed to be a lie? Should I change the title of the thread to be more accurate?

Well, if he had said "Egypt is not an ally", yes, a lie.

He said though ""I don't think that we consider them an ally", here on the forum, that would be an "IMO".

Either way I consider it a goof. If he said it as a veiled threat... I know it's been analyzed saying that it was ok, but that was just one analyst.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The statements made by CNN seem to reflect a lack of understanding of the situation in Egypt. As anyone who has been following the revolution in Egypt knows, the situation in that country has changed fairly dramatically since April. In April 2012, Egypt was still under control by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) which had been ruling since Mubarak stepped down. In June 2012, the second round of presidential elections occurred and Mohammed Morsi, the candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood, won. He was inaugurated on June 30.

Given the rapidly changing and volatile nature of the situation in Egypt (the country still lacks a constitution, and it is still unclear who is in charge, Morsi or SCAF), one would suspect that US relations with Egypt remain similarly unsettled. While Obama's statements may not necessarily reflect official US policy (if such a policy exists), they certainly reflect reality. Statements made in April about Egypt when the country was under different leadership should not constrain Obama's current policy toward Morsi's Egypt.

 

[BobG]

Given the rapidly changing and volatile nature of the situation in Egypt (the country still lacks a constitution, and it is still unclear who is in charge, Morsi or SCAF), one would suspect that US relations with Egypt remain similarly unsettled. While Obama's statements may not necessarily reflect official US policy (if such a policy exists), they certainly reflect reality. Statements made in April about Egypt when the country was under different leadership should not constrain Obama's current policy toward Morsi's Egypt.

I agree. It's pretty tough to consider a country an ally when you're afraid any diplomats you send there will be killed.

By the same token, a country doesn't have to be an ally in order for us to have relations with them or to even offer some support. Sometimes treating a country as an ally just sets unrealistic expectations.

 

[DavidSnider]

As can be seen from the CNN article, though, this one is being treated charitably by the media, a consideration not granted to Romney.

Who are 'the media'? There are plenty of media outlets that are far more than charitable to Romney. I think it's time to stop pretending that Fox News is a pirate radio station.

 

[russ_watters]

Who are 'the media'? There are plenty of media outlets that are far more than charitable to Romney. I think it's time to stop pretending that Fox News is a pirate radio station.

I'd absolutely be in favor of that. Here on PF, though, it seems that Fox is considered the fringe. The mainstream is considered to be outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd absolutely be in favor of that. Here on PF, though, it seems that Fox is considered the fringe. The mainstream is considered to be outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS.

FOX is as mainstream as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. I can be skeptical and doubt the credibility of each and all.

 

[Pythagorean]

If it comes from a television and there's commercials in between it, it's probably not as information-driven as entertainment-driven, as ratings are the bottom line.

 

[BobG]

I'd absolutely be in favor of that. Here on PF, though, it seems that Fox is considered the fringe. The mainstream is considered to be outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS.

Actually, I'd go the other way and include MSNBC along with Fox as out on the fringe. I guess one thing you can say for both is they don't falsely pretend to be neutral, so the viewer at least knows what they're getting.

 

[Pythagorean]

I want to say CNN is more neutral, but only because of Anderson Cooper grilling Debbie.

 

[Angry Citizen]

None of the major American news outlets can be trusted. I watch Fox primarily to get a sense of what the enemy is planning, and to recognize how desperate they are. I get a lot of my news from Al Jazeera. They are very trustworthy except when it comes to Palestine and Israel.

On topic: Obama didn't misspeak. I wouldn't consider Egypt an "ally", either before or after Mubarak was ousted. The Egyptians haven't entirely thrown off military rule yet. They're an unknown. What Obama said was an accurate assessment of our relations with the new government: not a friend, not a foe.

 

[SixNein]

I'm very worried about the state of affairs in the middle east. There exists efforts to install democracies over there; however, there is also a very large push to install theocracies. In general, the middle east seems to be in conflict on which way to go. The literal fundamentalists want a very different kind of government then the secularist. Whoever wins that conflict will decide the fate of the middle east.I can't believe nobody mentioned NPR.

 

[DavidSnider]

Actually, I'd go the other way and include MSNBC along with Fox as out on the fringe. I guess one thing you can say for both is they don't falsely pretend to be neutral, so the viewer at least knows what they're getting.

Erm, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of Fox News.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Erm, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of Fox News.

What, you didn't catch the wink wink, nudge nudge? Fox News is so blatantly partisan, no one really pretends they're fair and balanced. The only justifications I've seen on that end have involved comparing Fox to the rest of the "liberal media", thus Fox becomes something of a counterweight. Ridiculous if you ask me. Not even MSNBC is that partisan.

 

[BobG]

I think this article captures the changes in relationships that have occurred because of the "Arab Spring".

As Arab countries become more democratic, their leaders will have to reflect the attitudes and goals of their people. It's unrealistic to expect the US to have a close relationship with a country's government when the people in that country have goals incompatible with US goals.

I think the wave of protests sweeping Arab countries reflect that. It's just inconceivable that all of this is simply a response to the world's worst video, which also happens to be offensive. How could this movie possibly move more people than Helen of Troy?

You watch this video and think that people have already died because of it; that, depending on what happens in the Middle East, this may be the most significant movie made in the history of mankind, and you immediately want to go have yourself drug tested. Reality has wandered down a very strange road over the last week.

These protests reflect underlying bad feelings towards the US and the Western world in general - not this video.

That's a problem that the US is going to have to solve, work around, or just accept regardless of who becomes President.

It's also a problem for Israel. In a Middle East controlled by governments, and not by people, the Israel-Palestinian problem was easier to handle.

The world changes. US relationships change as well.

 

[mheslep]

I'm very worried about the state of affairs in the middle east. There exists efforts to install democracies over there; however, there is also a very large push to install theocracies. In general, the middle east seems to be in conflict on which way to go. The literal fundamentalists want a very different kind of government then the secularist. Whoever wins that conflict will decide the fate of the middle east.


I can't believe nobody mentioned NPR.

NPR

 

[mheslep]

These protests reflect underlying bad feelings towards the US and the Western world in general - not this video.

The relevant question is the bad feelings of who or which group? The majority of those countries, or anywhere close to it? I don't think so.

The Westboro Baptists have bad feelings towards the US as well, and from what I'm reading I see many of the protesters abroad having more in common with the Westboro Baptists and the KKK than the majority of those in their countries. The Westboro Baptists can all catch the next bus out of the country, and to the extent I'm right about the embassy attackers they can get on the same bus.

 

[rootX]

The relevant question is the bad feelings of who or which group? The majority of those countries, or anywhere close to it? I don't think so.

I have seen lots of immigrants in Canada from Arab and East Asia but I never came across one who had good feelings for US (or for western interference in other parts of the world).

 

[mheslep]

I have seen lots of immigrants in Canada from Arab and East Asia but I never came across one who had good feelings for US (or for western interference in other parts of the world).

And they came to the West why? Seems to me they're voting with their feet. As have the millions of muslims that have come to the US, including the US President's father.

What do you imagine is the *general* opinion in Libya of US and NATO support of the fight against Qaddafi?

 

[rootX]

And they came to the West why? Seems to me they're voting with their feet. As have the millions of muslims that have come to the US, including the US President's father.

I am not going to argue over why people immigrate.

I only gave you personal account for what kinds of opinions people outside US have because that's what you asked. Ideally it would be best to see the statistics for US support in the Arab world to answer your question.

 

[mheslep]

I am not going to argue over why people immigrate.

I only gave you personal account for what kinds of opinions people outside US have because that's what you asked. Ideally it would be best to see the statistics for US support in the Arab world to answer your question.

And I'm wondering why these accounts did not immediately raise the question of, "so then what motivated you to come here?"

Ideally it would be best to observe how the majority act.

 

[rootX]

And I'm wondering why these accounts did not immediately raise the question of, "so then what motivated you to come here?"

Ideally it would be best to observe how the majority act.

Say someone talking about the role of US in making Palestine not liveable by 2020. My response: So, why did you come to come to Canada?

Really? Do you think I am some redneck like Sarah Palin! You are suggesting to create tensions where there is no need.

 

[BobG]

A sample of people that had left their home country to come to the US wouldn't give a very accurate representation regardless.

Polls conducted in their home country would give the most accurate results: Global Opinion of Obama Slips

It only samples Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Pakistan (plus several European and Asian countries), but less than half have a favorable opinion of the US, with favorability in the teens for Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Pakistan.

And while the Middle East countries like Obama better than Bush, they don't like him - especially drone strikes in Pakistan.

 

[mheslep]

A sample of people that had left their home country to come to the US wouldn't give a very accurate representation regardless.

Polls conducted in their home country would give the most accurate results: Global Opinion of Obama Slips...

That would hold what people say (to a pollster) is a more accurate representation than what they do, or how they behave. I disagree.

 

[Pythagorean]

That would hold what people say (to a pollster) is a more accurate representation than what they do, or how they behave. I disagree.

I'm not sure I understand... what should polls have to do with poll-taker behavior? The purpose of polls is to see what kind of behavior people expect from administration; hypocrisy doesn't invalidate poll results, it's just an interesting social aspect of human expectations.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure I understand... what should polls have to do with poll-taker behavior? The purpose of polls is to see what kind of behavior people expect from administration; hypocrisy doesn't invalidate poll results, it's just an interesting social aspect of human expectations.

The discussion was about determining the most accurate method for appraising what people most honestly think about a subject, generally any subject, but in this particular case what people foreigners think about America (people/policy/whatever). When possible, and many times it is not, I assert an observation of what people actually *do* is more accurate than a poll about what they *say* they think or do because, in my experience, what people say is in greater part based on what *other* people think.

An example would be TV ratings, where it is long known that the Nielsen diary results of what people say they watch differs markedly from the results obtained via a method using an automatic recording box which shows what they actually do watch.

 

[BobG]

That would hold what people say (to a pollster) is a more accurate representation than what they do, or how they behave. I disagree.

Is there some sort of behavior that would prove what percentage of the population have a favorable/unfavorable view? Or are you saying it's impossible to know how a population feels?

The behavior certainly wouldn't be how many immigrate to the US. The US places limits on immigration. It's pretty much guaranteed that far less than 50% of a country's population will immigrate to the US. That doesn't mean that less than 50% of the population have an unfavorable view of the US. And having the maximum number allowable to the US immigrate doesn't prove that over 50% of the population want to come to the US, either, since such a small percentage are allowed to come.

 

[Pythagorean]

The discussion was about determining the most accurate method for appraising what people most honestly think about a subject, generally any subject, but in this particular case what people foreigners think about America (people/policy/whatever). When possible, and many times it is not, I assert an observation of what people actually *do* is more accurate than a poll about what they *say* they think or do because, in my experience, what people say is in greater part based on what *other* people think.

An example would be TV ratings, where it is long known that the Nielsen diary results of what people say they watch differs markedly from the results obtained via a method using an automatic recording box which shows what they actually do watch.

In the TV ratings example, people are reporting their own behavior. That is a very special case of a survey. An opinion poll is about what people think; it's about their expectations. There's no objective, frame-invariant event being reported on.

 

[russ_watters]

FOX is as mainstream as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS. I can be skeptical and doubt the credibility of each and all.

I try very hard not to use them as a souce, since it seems like I get jumed on for it a lot.

 

[SixNein]

I try very hard not to use them as a souce, since it seems like I get jumed on for it a lot.

Fox had glen beck... need I say more?

Start sourcing NPR. Every time you do, an Angle gets wings.

 

[mheslep]

Is there some sort of behavior that would prove what percentage of the population have a favorable/unfavorable view?

No.

Or are you saying it's impossible to know how a population feels?

No?

The behavior certainly wouldn't be how many immigrate to the US. The US places limits on immigration. It's pretty much guaranteed that far less than 50% of a country's population will immigrate to the US. That doesn't mean that less than 50% of the population have an unfavorable view of the US. And having the maximum number allowable to the US immigrate doesn't prove that over 50% of the population want to come to the US, either, since such a small percentage are allowed to come.

This was not my point. You went to some effort there to show action such as immigration is not some kind of full proof indicator of opinion. I agree, nor is anything else. My point was to draw a similar skepticism, at least, onto poll results and especially third hand, tales of how someone's absolute negative opinion of the west when they have immigrated their by choice.

 

[mheslep]

Fox had glen beck... need I say more?

Who doesn't belong near any microphone given he said publicly he'd like to kill Michael Moore, and I'm not interested in Beck's explanation.

Start sourcing NPR. Every time you do, an Angle gets wings.

Which would be an indication you prefer them for their viewpoint, as opposed to their objectivity and reliability as a news source?

NPR btw still has Nina Totenburg on air who is not an agitprop personality, but one of their *news* commentators. For the same reason, she also does not belong near any microphone:

Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job."

And I'm not interested in her explanation either.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you actually listened to the piece where Totenberg talks about Boykin (not on NPR, by the way), rather than trust an op-ed's recreation of it, you'd have realized the op-ed was a load of crap.

PS: I've heard Romney doesn't beat his wife anymore, but I'm not interested in his explanations.

 

[Gokul43201]

As can be seen from the CNN article, though, this one is being treated charitably by the media, a consideration not granted to Romney.

Is there any doubt that in only one of the two cases is a person trying to take a cheap shot for political gain?

 

[chemisttree]

If you actually listened to the piece where Totenberg talks about Boykin (not on NPR, by the way), rather than trust an op-ed's recreation of it, you'd have realized the op-ed was a load of crap.

I listened to it and it went down just the way it's been reported. Totenberg said she, "... hoped he was not long for this world.", and then started backpedaling. And Totenberg IS on NPR, BTW. Where she spews her nastiness is irrelevant, isn't it? And this wasn't the only time. In response to a particularly cruel and bigoted opinon of Jesse Helms she opined, "...if there's retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will." I think the op-ed is pretty close to the mark. She's a piece of work indeed.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Obama's slip up is a big one because it opens a pandora's box of real problems in dealing with our "major non-nato ally" that he no longer considers an ally. A Major Non-Nato Ally is a designation which provides us the capability of sharing military hardware and money, and we've shared a lot of both with Egypt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally)

Last year Egypt received around $1.5 billion in foreign aid in from the US for "peace and security," (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianwi...se-of-u-s-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-elsewhere/) all because [STRIKE]congress[/STRIKE] the government considers them a "major non-nato ally", and we've licensed a huge amount of military equipment to them as well. In fact, Egypt has vast amounts of US-developed military hardware; they are the 4th largest operator of F-16 strike fighters in the world, and have large numbers of M1A1 Abrams tanks and C-130 cargo aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Armed_Forces).

Obama's statements were also directly contradicted by his State Department, who apparently has a more educated feel for the ramifications of dropping Egypt as an ally than Obama does.

Obama on Egypt (Sept 12th?):

I don't think that we would consider [Egypt] an ally, but we do not consider them an enemy...

State Department on Egypt the next day:

September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President Obama said that was not the case.

REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO ally…

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.

REPORTER: …and you neglected to mention that. And that major non-NATO ally status is something that you guys have celebrated ever since the 1970s, when they were among the first batch of countries, along with Israel, to get that distinction. So, is Egypt an ally or is it not an ally? And if it is not an ally, in the sense of it being a major non-NATO ally, is Israel not an ally either? Is Japan not an ally?

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well Japan has a treaty alliance with the United States…

REPORTER: OK, they have a treaty. So other countries; Pakistan and India that don’t have mutual defense treaties with the United States - they’re major non-NATO allies - but, you guys really don’t think they’re allies, is that the message you’re trying to send? Because that’s the message the President sent last night. Unless you’ve decided that Egypt no longer qualifies as a major non-NATO ally.

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Well that was certainly, I don’t think, the intention. I’m going to refer you to the White House for further parsing on this.

REPORTER: So, forget about the President’s words. You’re saying that the Administration and the State Department still regard Egypt as a major non-NATO ally, and it is still a recipient of all the privileges that that entails?

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Yes.

If we don't consider Egypt to be an ally, why are we sending them $1.5 billion a year in "foreign aid," and allowing them to purchase our military hardware? Why did Obama support the Arab spring uprising in deposing Mubarak?

First Amendment: Just over a year ago, Obama assured Arab Spring Muslims he'd help protect their "universal right" of "free speech." Today he's trying to gag American filmmakers who offend them.

In a May 2011 State Department speech in which he boasted of planting the seeds of the Arab Spring that started in Tunis and spread to Cairo and Benghazi and beyond, Obama said he would use "all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal" to help supposed Muslim reformists transition to democracies that guarantee "free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders — whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran."

Now that Obama's heroic Muslim "freedom fighters" have used their newfound freedoms to storm our embassies, burn our flags and slaughter our diplomats allegedly to protest an offensive expression of free speech in this country, what does our president do?

Frog-march the offending Muhammad filmmaker and demand Google censor his movie trailers — all to protect the delicate feelings of the foreign Muslim troglodytes who have forsaken him.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-extorted-by-muslim-violence-into-silence.htm

 

[Evo]

If we don't consider Egypt to be an ally, why are we sending them $1.5 billion a year in "foreign aid," and allowing them to purchase our military hardware? Why did Obama support the Arab spring uprising in deposing Mubararak?

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It seems to me the new regime in Egypt isn't acting very much like our allies in some of their demands, especially asking for the release of the convicted man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing:

...the Muslim Brotherhood, whose idea of peace, has been shaped, since its revolutionary movement ... by the intellectual founder of al-Qaeda, Sayyid Qutb and the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. In fact, one of the first demands of the "democratically elected" ... Mohamed Morsi, upon taking office last June, was that [Rahman] be released from his U.S. jail cell, where he has languished for 17 years since being convicted for planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The symbiotic connections between al Qaeda and the MB are chronicled in Willful Blindness, whose author is the former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who put Rahman behind bars. [Emphasis Added]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-takes-first-of-12-steps-egypt-is-not-a-u-s-ally

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

It seems to me that Obama has made several mis-steps that are nearly directly parallel to Jimmy Carter's dealings with Iran in the 1970's, what do you think? From what I can tell we're well on the way to a situation where [Carter : Iran :: Obama : Egypt].

Edit- and if "things have changed for the worse" as you suggest, shouldn't Obama be immediately calling for the removal of the "major non-nato ally" designation for Egypt so we can stop giving them money and military hardware?

 

[BobG]

Obviously, it's because things have changed for the worse since then. Deposing Mubarak gave the Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that would be more progressive, providing more personal freedoms and tolerance. But that didn't happen. IMO.

Deposing Mubarak gave Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that reflects their attitudes and views. That did happen.

The other is what we wished would happen.

It seems to me that Obama has made several mis-steps that are nearly directly parallel to Jimmy Carter's dealings with Iran in the 1970's, what do you think? From what I can tell we're well on the way to a situation where [Carter : Iran :: Obama : Egypt].

Edit- and if "things have changed for the worse" as you suggest, shouldn't Obama be immediately calling for the removal of the "major non-nato ally" designation for Egypt so we can stop giving them money and military hardware?

I'd say immediately calling for the removal of "major non-Nato ally" would be a rash move, but we seem to moving that direction if things don't change (and they may not change).

There's no guarantee a democratic government will do what's best for their country. Heck, I can think of a couple incidents in our own Congress the last decade that prove that.

 

[Evo]

Deposing Mubarak gave Egyptians a chance to put a government in place that reflects their attitudes and views. That did happen.

The other is what we wished would happen.

Well, yeah.

 

[Gokul43201]

I listened to it and it went down just the way it's been reported. Totenberg said she, "... hoped he was not long for this world.", and then started backpedaling.

That was definitely not my impression when I first heard (or was it watched?) that piece some years ago. Your second quote (do you have a link for it?) lends support to your interpretation though.

And Totenberg IS on NPR, BTW. Where she spews her nastiness is irrelevant, isn't it?

It's irrelevant to an indictment of Totenberg's character. It's much less irrelevant to an indictment of NPR's quality.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there any doubt that in only one of the two cases is a person trying to take a cheap shot for political gain?

No, there's no doubt. What's your point? I didn't say Obama made a cheap-shot, I said Obama made a gaffe. An error. A mis-speak. And it is being treated charitably.

Are you saying that only cheap-shots should be attacked? If that were true, we wouldn't have the open thread on Romney's "47%" comment.

Frankly, the one and only reason I check Foxnews is that if there is a real an anti-Obama story to be told, I know that's the only place to find it. Right now, they're harping on Obama's misleading and likely factually incorrect characterization of the Libya attack. Obama is claiming the Libya attack was spontaneous, growing out of the protest, while other sources are going so far as to say there wasn't even a significant protest in progress in Benghazi at the time. Obama's downplaying of this terrorist attack (assassination) is in-line with his downplaying of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, something I take significant issue with. But you can't read about it on CNN.com. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/white-house-opens-door-explanations-libya/

 

[Gokul43201]

No, there's no doubt. What's your point? I didn't say Obama made a cheap-shot, I said Obama made a gaffe. An error. A mis-speak. And it is being treated charitably.

Are you saying that only cheap-shots should be attacked? If that were true, we wouldn't have the open thread on Romney's "47%" comment.

I'm saying that a mis-speak or an error which is also a cheap-shot is a different beast than a mis-speak or error which is not a cheap shot. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect equal treatment for both. That's not to say that there isn't a slant in the media, just that you have chosen a poor pair of events to make the comparison with.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I'd go the other way and include MSNBC along with Fox as out on the fringe. I guess one thing you can say for both is they don't falsely pretend to be neutral, so the viewer at least knows what they're getting.

One thing I will give MSNBC is their "Lean Forward" slogan is an open acknowledgment of their political slant.

Start sourcing NPR. Every time you do, an Angle gets wings.

I don't know why people think NPR is objective (is it because they think public=objective?) but I can't stand NPR for that "smugness" described earlier. No, NPR has a fanbase that they cater to, just like MSNBC and Fox.

 

[Pythagorean]

NPR has a fanbase that they cater to, just like MSNBC and Fox.

Could you substantiate that claim a bit more? This is what I found from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR):

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.