Ruminations On Egypt And Obama

Yesterday was fascinating, wasn't it? We started the morning with the electrifying headlines that Mubarak, the leader of Egypt, was going to comply with the demands of protesters and step down. Throughout the day, that became more and more certain... until Mubarak announced he would NOT step down.

The rumor that he WOULD step down was largely fueled by statements from Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that there was a "strong likelihood" that Mubarak would step down. This statement was NOT based upon any intelligence the CIA had, but rather upon news reports on the situation in Egypt. But whatever he based his statement on, his words started the massive expectation that Mubarak would resign.

I'm certain this surprised Mubarak, who obviously has no INTENTION of resigning. And do you really blame him? What do you think his life expectancy would be, out of office with no protection from his oh-so-peaceful and law-abiding critics?

But what I want to talk about today is Obama's curious stance on this issue.


Personally, I think he's a bit of a hypocrite. In a speech yesterday, he had this to say about the violent protests against the ruler of Egypt.

“What is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold. It’s a moment of transformation that’s taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change.”

Okay, I can see that. He believes that the government of Egypt should be responsive to its citizens, so that's the position he takes.

It IS curious, however, that when our own protest movement arose against Obama in 2009, peaceful instead of violent, Obama at first denied even knowing what the Tea Party was. To this day, his administration and allies in Congress STILL denigrate, belittle, and ignore the entire small government, fiscally responsible movement sparked by those protests. And the election of 2010... didn't the people speak here, too? Yet Obama hasn't resigned. Heck, he hasn't even changed his policies.

The people of the United States are calling for change, BEGGING for him to change his policies to be more constructive and realistic, and he's ignoring us.

Maybe the difference here is one of degree. So, let's pretend (and I'm NOT advocating this!) that the Tea Party protests spark a larger round of protests against Obama and his ruinous policies, and that those protests turn violent. We see riots in the streets of every major city, including Washington DC, each one filled with angry calls for Obama to resign. Would he do so?

Are you kidding?

In the face of that, Obama would (rightly) denounce the violent protesters as lawless ruffians (or similar verbiage... you pick) and mobilize the national guard to quell disorder. He'd probably declare martial law in every affected area, and begin a surveillance crackdown to stop other problem spots from developing. The dissidents who were violently rioting would complain this is the beginning of a police state, and might even be right, but nobody would listen to them because they have no credibility. After all, if you start a fight, can you really complain when the other guy strikes back?

To recap. If Obama were faced with Mubarak's situation where a majority of the country doesn't like his policies and wants him out of office (and he IS, we're just not violent about it), he would not resign. Yet he calls for Mubarak to resign... to do something that he clearly would not do himself.

One wonders why. WHY is Obama so dead set on getting Mubarak out of office? A cynic might notice that the majority of the opposition is composed of members of the Muslim Brotherhood... they are the dominant force behind the opposition movement. And, for those who don't know, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the worst of those groups, advocating using violence to spread Islam to take over non-Islamic countries. They have openly planned strategies for replacing the Constitution of the United States with Shariah law. They're not nice guys.

But they're Muslims. And Obama has always had respectful things to say about Islam. Every time I've heard (or read of) him referring to the Koran, it's always "the HOLY Koran"... but he doesn't take the same care to refer to "the HOLY Bible." Draw your own conclusions, here.

The upshot of it is, I think Obama has SOME reason for wanting Mubarak out. It may not be the obvious one I discussed above, but he has SOME reason. And it's important enough that he's willing to accept a new Egyptian government run by Muslim extremists who don't mind using violence to take over non-Muslim countries.

What else can explain the obvious hypocrisy of his stated reasoning?