How Barack Obama lost the Egyptian people. Fortunately, it’s something that a future president can probably amend.
[Update a few minutes later]
The administration had a year of warning about Egypt.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
[Update a while later]
Neil Ferguson explains to Mika, Joe and the gang.
Obama is crystal clear. The Egyptians can see right through him. Next election it’s our turn.
Video is priceless.
I dunno Rand, I think that regardless of how Obama had handled this you would have found fault with him. I’m no Obama fan, but I thought he did a reasonable job of handling the situation with the nuance required. I generally very rarely watch Obama speak (I think I’ve only actually seen him speak on about 5 occasions), but his public appearances that I saw were pretty good. Maybe I missed something, but I think you’ve got a mild case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I disagree with probably somewhere between 95-98% of what Obama does, but I thought this was one of the better jobs he had done in his presidency.
~Jon
“Fortunately, it’s something that a future president can probably amend.”
Along with our relationship with the UK
@Jonathan, from your comments it seems that you haven’t watched the video linked at the top of this post. In fact, your argument on this issue is quite similar to those of the hosts of the show.
Mr. Ferguson takes the show’s hosts to school on this administration’s mishandling of Egypt during the recent protests and going back over the past year and more with some pretty specific citations. Where do you disagree with Ferguson’s assessment?
What’s odd about the video is how the interviewer keeps implying that the administration somehow deserves credit for whatever happens in Egypt. That’s ridiculously hubristic, even if the administration were great at foreign policy, which it clearly isn’t.
Supporting a tyrant all this time, being totally surprised by the revolt, making inconsistent public statements over a short period of time (rather than speaking with one voice after figuring out what our position should be), etc. . .yeah, this administration blew it, regardless of how things turn out (which is almost completely independent of anything we’re likely to do).
The negative side of all of this is that if the U.S. had applied more pressure on Mubarak to moderate (this is a bipartisan failure, of course), we’d be less of a potential target for anger for the more radical elements of the revolt. I also think we did ourselves no service in constantly reminding the Egyptians of our influence in the region and, indirectly, of our complicity in the regime’s crimes.
From what I understand, while the Obama administration hasn’t covered itself with glory, there really isn’t much there. Looks to me like they were caught unprepared and waffled publicly about Egypt. While that’s going to alienate to some degree all of the Egyptian parties involved, it’s not what I consider a serious policy mistake. I doubt Egypt’s future or the US’s relationship with Egypt will change to a different destiny based on what has happened so far.
I think we’re not that important to what’s going on, but the real problem for us isn’t just the amateur hour crap that’s happened lately–it’s the support of a hated tyrant for the last 30 years.
I agree that the video is quite entertaining.
The negative side of all of this is that if the U.S. had applied more pressure on Mubarak to moderate (this is a bipartisan failure, of course), we’d be less of a potential target for anger for the more radical elements of the revolt.
Ironically, it is precisely when regimes moderate that they become ripe for revolt. That pattern has repeated throughout history. It is rare indeed for those revolutions to produce a result like the American revolution – indeed, that has only happened once in all of history.
In the case of Egypt, nothing at all has changed. Hosni Mubarak may have been Egypt’s supposed leader but the power resided then where it does now, in the military, as it has since well before Mubarak took off the uniform to enter politics.
Jonathan Goff Says:
“I generally very rarely watch Obama speak (I think I’ve only actually seen him speak on about 5 occasions), but his public appearances that I saw were pretty good.”
The problem was that the administration took opposite positions from day to day and hour to hour. As Karl Hallowell, they waffled.
Obama gives great speeches and you are missing out if you don’t watch them. The way he changes his voice depending on the audience and the subject of his speech is remarkable. His tone, cadence and inflection should be studied by anyone interested in public speaking.
You can’t really understand Obama without listening to his speeches and contrasting them to his policies and practices. Maybe you can get a better understanding of the man by not listening to his speeches and only focusing on his actions but then you might not understand the charismatic effect he has on his followers.
Pro Libertate Says:
“What’s odd about the video is how the interviewer keeps implying that the administration somehow deserves credit for whatever happens in Egypt. That’s ridiculously hubristic, even if the administration were great at foreign policy, which it clearly isn’t.”
It is the utmost arrogance to assume that the protesters in the square without internet or tv were influenced by a speech that Obama gave, which is what Mica seemed to be implying.
Anything Mica says has to be taken with a grain of salt, she gets most of her talking points via on air text messages from the White House. One morning she even brought out a folder of a messaging plan that according to her, she had worked out with the administration. She was very proud of it.
J Goff wrote,”I thought he did a reasonable job of handling the situation with the nuance required.”
You really need to watch the video. Noted historian Niall is hardly a conservative or typical Obama critic. He skewers Obama for having NO strategy whatsoever upon which to base a policy. Is US policy to stimulate Middle East democracies (Bush policy) or what? Nobody knows. He cites several complete flip-flops in policy statements by administration spokespersons over the crisis timeframe. Understandable when you realize as Niall says that Obama is “clueless” about what his strategic aims are. Finally, he cites examples of several previous administration advisers over the decades and correctly labels Obama’s advisers as “third rate”. This should not be a surprise given Obama’s international political inexperience, insulated academic culture and affirmative action background. Pathetic.
His attempt at a budget was even worse. Not good for this country.
I don’t know why Ferguson had to reach back for a Henry Kissinger comparison to call Hillary Clinton a second-rate foreign-policy advisor. I mean, what’s her expertise? Senator from New York? First Lady? What are her signature accomplishments as Secretary of State? A reset button Win The Future moment with the Russians? Weird.
Re “restration of the Caliphate”…didn’t the old Caliphate extend beyond the borders of modern-day Egypt? If I were Qadaffi, I’d be leery of Muslim Brotherhood.
Oh great – now that I’ve gotten used to the Frenchified pronunciation of Stephen Colbert’s last name, I find out that “Niall” doesn’t rhyme with “dial.”
Ed,
No doubt. Letting the boot off the neck is often a prelude to revolt. Of course, if the boot wasn’t on the neck in the first place. . . .