Egyptians protesting across the country

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Egypt does have a Republican Guard. It's even called the Republican Guard. It's only a small force, however, and it's loyalties aren't totally clear - probably with the establishment, but quite possibly only to their commander and whoever he throws his lot in. The reason they're likely loyal to the regime is simple. They're highly motivated, extremely well paid volunteers, not conscripts or volunteers just in it for the money.

They seem to be loyal to the Establishment first and Mubarak second. There's noise in the American media about how the Egyptian military is shifting away from "Keep Mubarak in power" to "preserve the Egyptian Establishment."

[Broomstick]

So far you have only proven her right.

Let's go over this:

1. Broomstick says that journalists are "bloodthirsty vultures" and know-nothings.
2. Siege, as a journalist, takes offense at this, and asks to know what exactly her problem is with journalists.
3. Broomstick says that they make mistakes on aviation.
4. Siege says that's not a good reason to call them "bloodthirsty vultures."

Ah, the typical distortion tactics employed on SD.net...

The question I replied to with the word "aviation" was giving an example of what journalists always get wrong. It is NOT why I think they're vultures. I think they're vultures because for the most part they make their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy.

As an example, we see stories in the media about foreigners fleeing Egypt in droves, we don't see stories like Prannon's where they calmly remain and are protected by the locals. The negative story gets the attention.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how she's right, or how the fact that journalists aren't superhuman individuals with immense knowledge of every discipline of study under the sun merits condemnation.

They don't get highly technical aspects of aviation wrong, they get very simple aspects wrong, things that a quick Google or look on Wikipedia would give them correct information. They do that with medicine, too. It's so common with guns or the military it's a running joke around here. It's gotten to the point I just flat out don't trust them on any technical subject period. The exceptions would be a reporter who is also a pilot, or a reporter who is also a doctor, but those are not all common. The average reporter is someone with no technical knowledge whatsoever outside his or her field and the moment they open their mouths about some technical subject that is painfully apparent.

Sure, it can be annoying when journalists get facts wrong when it's something that you know about. But, how exactly are you supposed to address that meaningfully?

You can't, because news agencies don't give a fuck about accuracy, they care about attracting audience attention. Once upon a time there was a thing called "fact checking" but no more - deadlines are too tight, it takes too much time, and much of the time they DO quote an expert they edit what they say to make their own point instead of actually reporting, resulting in distortion and inaccuracy.

Seriously, mistakes that could be avoided by two minutes on the internet are inexcusable.

[Zed]

The question I replied to with the word "aviation" was giving an example of what journalists always get wrong. It is NOT why I think they're vultures. I think they're vultures because for the most part they make their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy.

As an example, we see stories in the media about foreigners fleeing Egypt in droves, we don't see stories like Prannon's where they calmly remain and are protected by the locals. The negative story gets the attention.

You're generalizing about journalists in general based on the American press. "I haven't felt unsafe yet" is on the front page of Flanders' most renowned newspaper. Another prominent newspaper has a story on the front page of tourists in Egypt refusing to return before their vacations are over, because they feel safe. There is a video interview posted on the front page of the state television's website, in which Belgians declare they feel very safe. The primary story in the Flemish press is that the Egyptians are tired of Mubarak's oppression, and are trying to get rid of him without resorting to violence. These journalists aren't making their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy. They're making a living reporting on freedom from oppression, democracy, peace, and hope.

I'm not trying to claim that the decline of journalism isn't a problem. There's a lot less fact-checking in these days of news agencies, and it was illustrated in Belgium recently by a gigantic scam (a fake news agency sent out manufactured stories to the major press, which eagerly printed them for about a year and a half). That doesn't, however, mean that journalists are vultures.

[Broomstick]

I guess the part where I state quite clearly I follow the news in sources OTHER than just American completely escaped you?

Here's a quick glance through the news this morning: sure, the BBC is talking about the Egyptian protests, but directly underneath are headlines about 200 dead in Tunisia unrest. Le Monde's lead actually takes you to something that is composed largely of reader comments - that is, ordinary people, not reporters, which is giving a much calmer view than you get from the professionals. Xinhua's website leads with Chinese nationals home after being "stranded" in Eqypt, which "stranding" occurred (I believe) largely because people were frightened (I split that responsibility between the media and government) into leaving in a stampede which overloaded the airports there. The Sydney Herald leads with the impending cyclone (reasonable, given the importance to that region) followed immediately by a story about looking for a teen's murderer.

In general, the news is not happy. It's rarely happy. Even when you have the happy event of a peaceful protest in Egypt it's immediately followed by stories of murder and mayhem.

Really, you're not going to change my mind on this as the evidence is overwhelming that the news is dominated by tragedy and not happy occurrences. Even when the lead story is positive it's quickly followed by murder, robbery, mayhem, bribery, natural disasters.... The majority of reporting day to day is on bad stuff.

[Siege]

Apparently two million people have shown up to protest on Tahrir Square and elsewhere today. If anyone wonders what that many people look like, Al Jazeera has a live feed up of the protests currently taking place. You can watch the goings-on here.

[Siege]

I think they're vultures because for the most part they make their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy.

You are, quite frankly, being full of shit again. As I shall now demonstrate.

As an example, we see stories in the media about foreigners fleeing Egypt in droves, we don't see stories like Prannon's where they calmly remain and are protected by the locals. The negative story gets the attention.

No it does't. BBC News opens with "Egypt cities hold major protests" with the first subheader titled "Peaceful scenes at protest". CNN headlines "Egypt's 'march of millions' sends message to Mubarak"; Der Spiegel opens with "Opposition to Mubarak forge closer alliance". The Guardian likewise headlines "Million-strong protest urges Mubarak to go".

Want me to go on? Sure, I'll go on. The Times: "Egypt live: ‘Two million’ at mass protest"; The New York Times: "Ever-Larger Protests Flood Cairo Streets - Mubarak’s Grip on Power Is Shaken"; Washington Post: "Crowd in Cairo proclaims end of Mubarak's rule"; El Pais: "Two million Egyptians protest against Mubarak"; Frankfurter Allgemeine: "King of Jordan sacks government" (second headline: "hundreds of thousands protest in Cairo"). And so on, and so forth.

That's some quality bloodthirsty vulturing, let me tell you! Except of course that it isn't -- in fact it doesn't get much more neutral and balanced than this. Are there stories about tourists stranded in Egyptian airports? Sure there are -- how dare journalists write stories about citizens of the countries they publish in getting caught between a rock and a hard place, right? And how dare they talk about how there are occasionally shootings and other unpleasantness, or how the police have vanished from the streets... Even though even Prannon's father writes about those things too, and I don't see you raising a big stink over that -- quite the opposite in fact.

[CaptainChewbacca]

And in other news the King of Jordan has fired his Prime Minister. Also most of the cabinet. Looks like he's trying to stay ahead of the protests.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

As autocrats go, the King of Jordan is a pretty cool (and well-liked) dude. Helps that as far as I know he tries to stay pretty hands-off most of the time.

[Bakustra]

So far you have only proven her right.

Let's go over this:

1. Broomstick says that journalists are "bloodthirsty vultures" and know-nothings.
2. Siege, as a journalist, takes offense at this, and asks to know what exactly her problem is with journalists.
3. Broomstick says that they make mistakes on aviation.
4. Siege says that's not a good reason to call them "bloodthirsty vultures."

Ah, the typical distortion tactics employed on SD.net...

The question I replied to with the word "aviation" was giving an example of what journalists always get wrong. It is NOT why I think they're vultures. I think they're vultures because for the most part they make their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy.

As an example, we see stories in the media about foreigners fleeing Egypt in droves, we don't see stories like Prannon's where they calmly remain and are protected by the locals. The negative story gets the attention.

In the US, yes, somewhat. In other countries, not so much. Sensationalist reporting is not something that you should blame the reporters for, seeing as it's an editorial policy that is mandated by the ownership as a consequence of the business-oriented state of most news media in the US. It's like blaming soldiers for us being in Iraq right now- they had no real part in the decision-making.

Yesterday's NYT had three front-page articles on Egypt. One detailed the fact that the older opposition figures were deferring to the younger leaders of the protests. One was about Israel's reaction, and one was about how Mohammed El-Baradei had become the figurehead and public face of the movement. There was one picture, showing arrested looting suspects, that could be seen as "glorifying in violence" if you squint a little, and an article about the spread of looting. And I would not call the NYT a neutral paper.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how she's right, or how the fact that journalists aren't superhuman individuals with immense knowledge of every discipline of study under the sun merits condemnation.

They don't get highly technical aspects of aviation wrong, they get very simple aspects wrong, things that a quick Google or look on Wikipedia would give them correct information. They do that with medicine, too. It's so common with guns or the military it's a running joke around here. It's gotten to the point I just flat out don't trust them on any technical subject period. The exceptions would be a reporter who is also a pilot, or a reporter who is also a doctor, but those are not all common. The average reporter is someone with no technical knowledge whatsoever outside his or her field and the moment they open their mouths about some technical subject that is painfully apparent.

So why is that the case? Could they be under a great deal of pressure to meet deadlines? Could they be working from the standpoint that readers need to be able to understand the article? Are you seriously suggesting that reporters should have worked in a field before speaking about it? Could you provide some examples and how egregious the examples are as well?

Sure, it can be annoying when journalists get facts wrong when it's something that you know about. But, how exactly are you supposed to address that meaningfully?

You can't, because news agencies don't give a fuck about accuracy, they care about attracting audience attention. Once upon a time there was a thing called "fact checking" but no more - deadlines are too tight, it takes too much time, and much of the time they DO quote an expert they edit what they say to make their own point instead of actually reporting, resulting in distortion and inaccuracy.

Seriously, mistakes that could be avoided by two minutes on the internet are inexcusable.

Can you provide examples? I can think of examples that I have seen in fields I have some knowledge of- but, it's probably a mixture of various factors that are generally explicable and themselves could probably be compensated for in educational programs.

[Akhlut]

Apparently Netanyahu isn't too pleased with the protests.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 45613.html

Israel 'fears' post-Mubarak era

Binyamin Netanyahu says he is following events in Egypt with "vigilance and worry".

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has said that he was following events in Egypt with "vigilance and worry".

At a news conference alongside Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, on Monday in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said Egypt could wind up with a radical Islamic regime as in Iran.

He hoped Israel's three-decade-old peace treaty with Egypt would survive any changes that were taking place.

Al Jazeera's Nisreen El-Shamayel reports on the Israeli-Egyptian relation
Earlier, an Israeli newspaper had reported that Israel has called on the United States and Europe to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak "in a bid to preserve stability in Egypt" and the wider Middle East.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the foreign ministry, in an urgent special cable, instructed its ambassadors to key countries, to "stress ... the importance of Egypt's stability".

Increasingly, president Mubarak has been isolated by swift and at times harsh criticism from Western leaders who called for reform.

It is unclear how angry Egyptians will interpret Israel's apparent support for their government.

The protests in Egypt have reportedly thrown the Israeli government into turmoil, with military officials holding lengthy strategy sessions, assessing possible scenarios of a post-Mubarak Egypt.

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said on Sunday that his government is "anxiously monitoring" the political unrest in Egypt, his first comment on the crisis threatening a government that has been one of Israel's key allies for more than 30 years.

Israeli officials have remained largely silent about the situation in Egypt, but have made clear that preserving the historic 1979 peace agreement with the biggest Arab nation is a paramount interest.

The peace deal, cool but stable, turned Israel's most potent regional enemy into a crucial partner, provided security on one of its borders and allowed it to significantly reduce the size of its army and defence budget.

'Anxiously monitoring'

"We are anxiously monitoring what is happening in Egypt and in our region," Netanyahu said before his cabinet's weekly meeting on Sunday.

"Israel and Egypt have been at peace for more than three decades and our objective is to ensure that these ties be preserved. At this time, we must display responsibility, restraint and utmost prudence,'' Netanyahu added.

It was the first high-level comment from Israel on the Egypt protests, which began last week with disorganised crowds demanding the resignation of Mubarak and have grown into the most significant challenge to Egypt's autocratic regime in recent memory.
Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, discussed the situation in Egypt with Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, on Sunday, according to a statement from Barak's office. No details of the discussion were released.

Over the weekend, Israel evacuated the families of its diplomats from Cairo and security officials began holding urgent consultations.

Israel's primary concern is that the uprising could be commandeered by Egypt's strongest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its allies, who would presumably move Egypt away from its alignment with the West and possibly cancel the peace agreement with Israel.

"[...] Israelis, have been overtaken by fear: The fear of democracy. Not here, in neighbouring countries," Sever Plocker, an Israeli commentator, writes in the daily Yediot Ahronot.

"Its as though we never prayed for our Arab neighbours to become liberal democracies," Plocker writes.

The benefits to Israel of peace with Egypt have been significant. In the three decades before the peace agreement, Israel and Egypt fought four major wars.

Defence calculations

Israel now spends nine per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, Shueftan said - compared with 23 per cent in the 1970s, when a state of war with Egypt still existed.

Where Israel once deployed thousands of soldiers along the Egyptian frontier, today there are several hundred. This reduction allowed the Israeli economy to begin flowering in the years after the peace deal, he said. Mubarak has also served as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians.

If Egypt resumes its conflict with Israel, Israelis fear, it will put a powerful Western-armed military on the side of Israel's enemies while also weakening pro-Western states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo, offered a grim assessment on Sunday in Yediot Ahronot.

"The assumption at present is that Mubarak's regime is living on borrowed time, and that a transition government will be formed for the next number of months until new general elections are held," he wrote.

"If those elections are held in a way that the Americans want, the most likely result will be that the Muslim Brotherhood will win a majority and will be the dominant force in the next government. That is why it is only a question of a brief period of time before Israel's peace with Egypt pays the price," Shaked wrote.

Egypt-Iran similarities?

Some in Israel have compared US president Barack Obama's response to the crisis to that of former US president Jimmy Carter to the Iranian revolution in 1979. Obama has called on Mubarak to show restraint and pass unspecified reforms in Egypt.

"Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as 'the president who lost Iran', which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic republic," Aluf Benn, an analyst in Haaretz, wrote.

"Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who 'lost' Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled."

Still, the Obama administration has stopped short of calling for the resignation of president Mubarak, and as of Sunday, the Pentagon continued to have high-level discussions with the Egytian military.

Former Israeli general Yaakov Amidror said that in the short term, Israel will face increased smuggling activities in the Sinai peninsula, where the authority of the Cairo government has been further weakened by the unrest.

As a result of Israel's blockade of the Gaza strip, widely lambasted as inhumane and an obstacle to the peace process, weapons, fuel and other goods enter the Hamas-controlled territory.

"They will now try to get in everything they couldn't get in before," Amidror said.

Israel captured Sinai in 1967 and then ceded it to Egypt in the 1979 peace deal. The area was demilitarised as part of the agreement.

For now, the unrest seems to have had the opposite effect. Gaza smugglers said the supply routes have been disrupted and that they have not received any merchandise from Egypt since Friday, apparently because of difficulties in transporting the goods across Egypt to the Gaza border.

Bolding mine.

Regarding the second bolding: how the hell can the US lose something that doesn't even belong to it? Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and every other nation are all their own, sovereign entities. And what the hell is Obama supposed to do in Turkey, Lebanon, or Egypt? Bring in the military and help stamp down the protestors? Set up a blockade on them? Threaten to drop the Bomb? I'm sure any of those options wouldn't wrench those nations even further into the arms of extreme Islamic governments a la the Taliban.

[Bakustra]

What the guy probably means is that the new Egyptian government might not be all that friendly to the US after we've spent decades propping up repressive governments in the region and in Egypt itself. There's not all that much Obama could have done that wouldn't have backfired immensely, but I don't think that the guy writing that was thinking too clearly.

Still, it's worth it to know that the prospect of democracy in its neighbors inspires fear in Israel's government. Of course, this was already discernible from the documents released by Al-Jazeera about Operation Cast Lead, but it confirms that this extends to any democratic change, secular or religious, Palestinian or not.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest political party, but most of the protesters aren't affiliated with parties, so I'm not sure how you can extrapolate that to the expressed paranoia. That's also ignoring that Egypt as a whole is far more secular in its beliefs than Saudi Arabia is, but I doubt that Israeli pundits are that much more informed than American ones.

[Broomstick]

....Siege whining about his profession...

Right. I said what was up on the websites at the time I posted. We all know that internet articles change. So of course, when you came by later there was a different set of headlines.

Look, funeral directors make their living off death and tragedy, too, but at least they admit that's what they do. Do journalists sometimes report good news or make a positive difference. Yes. Sometimes. The bulk of day to day reporting, however, is negative stuff.

Between twisting my words to say what you want them to, and using the fact that internet headlines change to portray me as a liar, I'd say you're par for the course for the profession.

Enough. Whine all you want, I have nothing more to contribute to this tangent.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

As autocrats go, the King of Jordan is a pretty cool (and well-liked) dude. Helps that as far as I know he tries to stay pretty hands-off most of the time.

I wouldn't call him an autocrat, not as such. Jordan's National Assembly comes with two houses, the Chamber of Deputies being democratically elected. A minimum of six must be female, 9 seats are reserved for Christians, 3 for Chechens/Circassians (a bit like Lebanon in that respect). The Assembly of Senators is appointed by the King, but cannot have blood ties to him. A two-thirds vote of both houses may overturn the King's veto. His Cabinet is responsible to the Deputies, and can be forced to resign by them. All in all, it comes across as one of those 'balance of power' type governments, putting me in mind of some of the European constitutional monarchies in the 19th century (with Parliaments getting stronger and monarchs increasingly acting in a balancing role).

As for King Abdullah himself, last I heard he was much loved in Jordan, and held in some regard elsewhere in the world. This is in part building on the reputation of his father, King Hussein, and by doing his own job well. A Queen like her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania_of_Jordan) is no disadvantage either. I hated the way some newspapers tried to lump in him with characters like Mubarak, because he's just not like that, whether in terms of power or personality. It could be argued that this is because Jordan actually has something approximating to a working legislature, which is fair enough.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I'm not seeing how she's right, or how the fact that journalists aren't superhuman individuals with immense knowledge of every discipline of study under the sun merits condemnation.

They don't get highly technical aspects of aviation wrong, they get very simple aspects wrong, things that a quick Google or look on Wikipedia would give them correct information. They do that with medicine, too. It's so common with guns or the military it's a running joke around here. It's gotten to the point I just flat out don't trust them on any technical subject period. The exceptions would be a reporter who is also a pilot, or a reporter who is also a doctor, but those are not all common. The average reporter is someone with no technical knowledge whatsoever outside his or her field and the moment they open their mouths about some technical subject that is painfully apparent.

So why is that the case? Could they be under a great deal of pressure to meet deadlines? Could they be working from the standpoint that readers need to be able to understand the article? Are you seriously suggesting that reporters should have worked in a field before speaking about it? Could you provide some examples and how egregious the examples are as well?

If your deadline is too short to spend a literal minute googling something it's too fucking short. I want accuracy in my news, but apparently these days speed is more important.

Again, they are getting SIMPLE things wrong. Stuff that could be easily explained to the general public. Go back and re-read threads where I talk about aviation accidents, the media getting it wrong is a frequent point in those threads.

And yes, there is a great deal of merit in the notion that reporters for a technical area should have some expertise in that area. They don't need to be experts, but they need to not look stupid. SOMETIMES you'll get that - in my area there are three weathermen with pilot's licenses that get put onto any aviation accident as a field reporter. THAT's a good use of resources. CNN has a neurosurgeon (Sanjay Gupta) who does a lot of their medical reporting, hey, there's a notion. If a reporter isn't an expert they should learn how to make use of expert opinion. Gina Kolata of the New York Times actually does half decent medical reporting not because she's medically trained but because she's made an effort to seek out true medical experts (not people paid to sit in front of a camera) and educate herself on medical issues and fact-check with trained medical people.

What pisses me off the most is that journalism COULD be better for just a little effort. There are some really good ones, they're the ones who either continue to educate themselves, or have developed good resources for fact-checking. Unfortunately, they're vanishingly rare these days. Having editors and owners who value speed and ratings over accuracy just makes the whole thing more shitty. I would dearly love to have a news sources I can actually trust without feeling a need to cross-reference and fact-check and all that other stuff but there is not one in the entire world I trust to give me the facts and the truth without distortion and bias that could have been avoided.

[Siege]

Right. I said what was up on the websites at the time I posted. We all know that internet articles change. So of course, when you came by later there was a different set of headlines.

Do you even remember what you said? Because I remember what you said.

As an example, we see stories in the media about foreigners fleeing Egypt in droves, we don't see stories like Prannon's where they calmly remain and are protected by the locals. The negative story gets the attention.

This was all part of your overarching narrative about how all journalists were amoral bloodthirsty vulturing scumbags who "make their living reporting on death, destruction, fear, and tragedy", because they are - according to you - portraying people such as the folks who are guarding Prannon's parents apartment complex safe "in a negative light" "because reporting on that is what pays their bills".

That was your narrative, right? You were after all the one who wrote those things. Except I just showed with a cursory glance at the articles being run by major news organizations that it's complete and utter shit, quite possibly pulled directly from a living cow's rectum.

Look, funeral directors make their living off death and tragedy, too, but at least they admit that's what they do. Do journalists sometimes report good news or make a positive difference. Yes. Sometimes. The bulk of day to day reporting, however, is negative stuff.

And would you make the claim that funeral directors - not some or even many but funeral directors as in the entire profession - "want to see blood, death and destruction"? A dollar says you wouldn't. Certainly if you tried to paint all funeral directors as "vultures" who wanted to see just that, I bet they'd take issue with that. It's not surprisingly this retarded blanket condemnation of an entire profession that I originally took issue with.

If you want to whinge about how the news is too negative, be my guest. But don't pretend that's what started this whole clusterfuck of a sidetrack. Just to remind you what my initial request was:

I'll thank you for not painting the whole of the profession with one broad brush.

But I guess that's too much to ask. I'll keep this in mind next time folks are discussing American policemen!

Between twisting my words to say what you want them to, and using the fact that internet headlines change to portray me as a liar, I'd say you're par for the course for the profession.

Well, at least I know how to properly use quotation marks. After all I wasn't the one who wrote 'your kneejerk reaction is "America sucks"' as if my opponent actually said that!

Hey, you know what you remind me of? A politician who hasn't had enough media training to know that before running his mouth he ought to check if what he's on about has any actual relation to reality. Because those people also have a tendency to huff and puff and blame the press for having the temerity to point out their errors.

Funny, that.

[SCRawl]

Broomstick and Siege: either stop arguing about journalists or move it to another thread. Or I'll move it to another thread. But as I don't like doing unnecessary work, heads will be cracked in the aftermath if we choose that last option.

[Block]

As for King Abdullah himself, last I heard he was much loved in Jordan, and held in some regard elsewhere in the world. This is in part building on the reputation of his father, King Hussein, and by doing his own job well. A Queen like her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania_of_Jordan) is no disadvantage either. I hated the way some newspapers tried to lump in him with characters like Mubarak, because he's just not like that, whether in terms of power or personality. It could be argued that this is because Jordan actually has something approximating to a working legislature, which is fair enough.

Antecdotal, but the Jordanians that I know universally love him and his Queen. The only ill will is towards the elected government who doesn't seem to be facing the problems that exist.

[FSTargetDrone]

Now this in interesting... US envoy tells Mubarak to step aside:

latimes.com

Envoy for Obama tells Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step aside

Frank Wisner, an envoy sent to Cairo at President Obama's request, tells Hosni Mubarak that he should not be part of the 'transition' that the U.S. has called for. 'This message was plainly rebuffed,' says a source.

By Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons, Tribune Washington Bureau

12:12 PM PST, February 1, 2011
Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. envoy in Cairo told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that he needed to step aside and allow a new government to take shape without him but was rebuffed, according to Middle East experts who have discussed the matter with the Obama administration.

Frank Wisner, a former ambassador to Egypt who has good relations with the Mubarak regime, traveled to Cairo at President Obama's behest to talk to the Egyptian leader about the country's future.

Wisner delivered a direct message that Mubarak should not be part of the "transition" that the U.S. had called for, according to Middle East experts who spoke on condition of anonymity.

One expert on the region said that in his regular conversations with the Obama administration about the unrest in Egypt, he learned that Wisner's message to Mubarak was that "he was not going to be president in the future. And this message was plainly rebuffed."

It wasn't clear whether Wisner specified a timetable for the 82-year-old leader's departure. It also wasn't clear whether Wisner contacted Mubarak in person or by telephone. The experts described the contact on condition of anonymity. White House officials declined comment on Wisner's mission.

In another sign that the Obama administration is planning for a post-Mubarak era, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, has spoken to Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who has called upon Mubarak to step down.

The contact with ElBaradei was confirmed in a tweet by State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley as well as by a senior administration official.

Since the crisis unfolded, the White House has been careful not to publicly take sides in the dispute. The Obama administration is calling for an orderly transition in Egypt but has avoided taking a stance on Mubarak's fate. Rather, U.S. officials have said they do not want to be seen as picking Egypt's leaders and that the nation's future should be determined by its own people.

But the Wisner visit is the latest in a series of indications that the White House has drawn the conclusion that Mubarak cannot realistically remain in place. President Obama will be briefed by his senior national security team on events in Egypt at 3:30 p.m. EST Tuesday.

Elliott Abrams, who served as a deputy national security advisor in the George W. Bush administration, said Tuesday that if Mubarak wanted to stay in office until the next elections, that "won't suffice.''

"For him to say that he'll remain in charge for eight months and run the transition and run a free election in September, but simply not be a candidate himself, that's not going to cut it,'' said Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "That's not going to get people out of the streets.''

Abrams said the U.S. should not publicly demand that Mubarak step down sooner. Such messages should be delivered privately, he said. The Obama administration needs to avoid perceptions that it is dictating when foreign leaders should leave office, he said.

Abrams also noted that Mubarak could have avoided the massive unrest in Egypt had he committed not to running for reelection sooner.

[Broomstick]

I don't really find that surprising. While it's probably best the US doesn't publicly/officially support one side or another I can certainly see them expressing a more solid opinion behind the scenes.

[FSTargetDrone]

No, not surprising, but interesting just the same. And Mubarak is supposedly making some sort of speech tonight. There is a story on CNN that he will not run for re-election, but that clearly seems like an unpalatable situation for many of the people in the country who want him out now:

Official: Egypt's Mubarak will not seek re-election
By the CNN Wire Staff
February 1, 2011 3:17 p.m. EST

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has decided not to seek re-election, a senior U.S. official involved in the Obama administration's deliberations on Egypt said Tuesday.

The official cited "reliable contacts in Cairo" for the news and said that Mubarak will make an announcement about his intention.

"There have been a lot of mixed signals" over the past week, said the official, but such an announcement would be "a significant step in the right direction."

The official said the White House has made clear "at the highest levels" that it wanted Mubarak to state that neither he nor his son, Gamal, would be a presidential candidate in the next elections set for September.

Mubarak's decision comes as Egypt teeters on a political precipice and it's unclear whether it will satisfy angry and frustrated demonstrators who want his immediate removal. Many vowed Tuesday not to leave Cairo's central square until Mubarak steps down.

A week of uprising, sometimes violent, took on the tones of revolution in the Arab world's most populous nation and the world watched, amazed at the possibility of emboldened popular discontent sparking change in the authoritarian state.

By afternoon, demonstrators stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Cairo's Tahrir Square for a "march of millions." In Arabic, Tahrir means liberation. Never did it seem more true.

Tuesday's demonstrations were greater in intensity but largely peaceful, though no one could say with any certainty what would come next; whether another decisive show of people power would result in change or lead to repression.

There was an air of jubilation in Tahrir Square, as though the government was sure to cave. But the reality through most of the day was that Mubarak had refused to yield.

Helicopters hovered. Soldiers stood guard with their guns at key locations.

The Interior Ministry had announced it would shut down mobile phone networks in preparation for Tuesday's protests. But some cell phone service was still available Tuesday afternoon.

Banks and schools were shuttered and ATM screens were dark. Gas stations ran out of fuel. Long lines snaked around bakeries and supermarkets as shops began to ration how much food customers could buy.

State television reported Monday that the crisis has cost the country an estimated 69 billion Egyptian pounds (nearly $12 billion) and set its economy back six months.

Egypt's new finance minister, Samir Radwan, announced Tuesday that salaries would be disbursed through banks' automatic teller machines and owners of vandalized businesses would be compensated.

The internet was still down as Egyptians, despite the hardships, voiced their determination to carry on. They defied again a 3 p.m. curfew to demand that Mubarak step down.

Protesters set up their own checkpoints to keep weapons out of Tahrir Square.

The Egyptian army issued a statement thanking "all the citizens and the youth for working with their armed forces to protect public and private property."

The demonstrations turned ugly last Friday when thousands of riot and plainclothes police used brutal force to crack down on people on the streets. Since then, the army has replaced police as the enforcers of security and the gatherings have been largely peaceful.

Unconfirmed reports suggest up to 300 people may have been killed during the protests, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said Tuesday. CNN has not been able to independently confirm the death toll. Human Rights Watch has reported 80 deaths from two hospitals in Cairo, 36 in Alexandria and 13 in Suez.

"I urge the Egyptian authorities to ensure police and other security forces scrupulously avoid excessive use of force, and there needs to be a full investigation into the role of security forces in the violence that occurred over the past few days," Pillay said in a statement.

Amid the swirling tension, hope blossomed in the hearts of millions of Egyptians, many of whom have never dared to harbor such sentiment before.

Amr Badr, a young doctor, optimistically said his voice was important and that it "is going to be heard after today."

"This is our Egypt," Badr said with the conviction that the nation would be returned to people who, for three decades, have known nothing other than the iron hand of Mubarak.

People flooded into the square, bringing food and beverages to share. Some even set up tents to spend the night.

Patriotic music blared amid chants of "Down with Mubarak."

Scattered pro-Mubarak camps tried to defend the Egyptian leader. "No to the traitors," said one group of supporters making their way to the heart of the protests.

Inside the square, some protesters suggested marching toward Mubarak's presidential palace.

One said, "Mubarak may have thick skin, but we have sharper nails."

It will be "a very dramatic and perhaps even a decisive day," said Nicholas Burns, a professor of diplomacy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a former U.S. undersecretary of state.

"If the military cracks down on peaceful demonstrators on the streets of Alexandria or Cairo, that will be a decisive factor," he said.

The military had said Monday evening that it would not open fire on peaceful protesters.

Mubarak, now 82, imposed an emergency decree after the 1981 assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat and since then, has ruled accordingly. The wave of protests against his regime erupted after the uprising in Tunisia that ousted its longtime strongman January 14.

In recent days, protests inspired by the Tunisian outcome have spread to Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and Sudan. A Facebook page urged similar demonstrations in Syria.

In Jordan, calls for political reform prompted King Abdullah II Tuesday to dismiss his government and appoint a new prime minister.

The protesters are calling for democratization -- for a government that they feel represents them. They want an end to what they complain is a corrupt regime. Some have even called for government leaders to stand trial for alleged criminal actions.

Egyptian opposition leader and Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei told CNN that Mubarak must step down within two weeks.

Margaret Scobey, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, met Tuesday with ElBaradei and will be speaking with leaders of other political movements, a senior State Department official said. The official cautioned that Scobey's talks with ElBaradei doesn't mean the United States favors him.

A joint statement issued Tuesday by a so-called coalition of six political parties, including the banned opposition Muslim Brotherhood, laid out five demands for the government:

-- The resignation of Mubarak, whose presidency the opposition groups call illegitimate after a week of protests.

-- The formation of a transitional government to calm the unrest.

-- The establishment of a committee that will create a new constitution for the country, one that "will guarantee the principle of equality and the circulation of power."

-- The dissolution of parliamentary councils in the wake of "forged" elections.

-- The use of the military "to protect the country according to the constitution."

Mubarak fired his Cabinet on Saturday and designated his longtime intelligence chief Omar Suleiman as vice president, the first time he has filled that post since he came to power in 1981.

Suleiman announced Monday that he had begun discussing reform with opposition parties. Speaking on the state television network, he said a reform package should be drawn up "expeditiously."

"The other parties will also have a role to play, which will lead to real political reform," Suleiman said.

But there were no details about what proposals might be on the table or which parties were taking part.

Meanwhile, foreigners have started streaming out of Egypt. The U.S. State Department said 1,200 Americans have been evacuated and the British carrier BMI was organizing an extra flight to get 124 passengers out Tuesday. Other countries including China, India, Thailand and Australia were attempting to get stranded citizens out of Egypt.

Much of the Egyptian anger is driven by economic woes, including a dramatic rise in the cost of living coupled with high unemployment. Despite the government's food subsidies, people are struggling.

Egypt's economy was stagnant for decades, but in the past 10 years it began to grow, creating bigger differences between rich and poor, said Juan Cole, a Middle East historian at the University of Michigan.

The majority of Egypt's population is under 30 -- as is the vast majority of its unemployed. Many in the crowd are young men looking for economic opportunities and a better life.

As one person in Tahrir Square put it to CNN: It's about putting bread on the table.

CNN's John King, Ben Wedeman, Frederik Pleitgen, Ivan Watson, Housam Ahmed, Caroline Faraj, Salma Abdelaziz, Saad Abedine, Christine Theodorou, Zain Verjee, Arwa Damon and journalist Ian Lee contributed to this report

[Phantasee]

I sense a shift in the tone of CNN. They aren't emphasizing the chaos and so on and instead blamed the police for the violence of Friday. And they repeat that everyone has been peaceful since the army came in.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm seeing reports that there are similar protests going on in other arab nations, but I don't know if there's any cameras there while everyone is looking at Egypt.

[Broomstick]

Well, there have been protests and mass gatherings in Yemen as long as in Egypt, they just aren't getting as much press. Except maybe in the Arab world.

[FSTargetDrone]

Mubarak says he will step down as president in September:

Mubarak: 'I have spent enough time serving Egypt'

Updated 3m ago

By Jim Michaels and Theodore May, USA TODAY

CAIRO — Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak indicated in a 10-minute televised speech Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, after eight days of protests over his 30-year rule.

"I have spent enough time serving Egypt," Mubarak said in his second public address since the protests erupted. He said that over the next few months "remaining of my current reign, I will work very hard to carry out all the necessary measures to transfer power."

Egyptian elections are slated for September. "In all sincerety, regardless of circumstances, I never intended to be a candidate for another term," Mubarak said as demonstrators sitting on the ground in Cairo's Tahrir Square watched the speech on a giant TV screen hung between lampposts.

Mubarak said, "I have initated the formation of a new government with new priorities and initiatives which will respond to our young people's demands and their anxieties."

The crowd reacted wildly, and shouts of joy and "Leave!" echoed in Tahrir Square.

"This transition period will be difficult, but maybe it will lead to good later," said Mohammed Masry, 29, a travel agent, referring to the months leading up to September elections.

Other Egyptians said people will not be satisfied until there is justice for the repression under Mubarak's rule.

"The situation won't be better until all parties, such as the state security ... are in jail," said Ahmed Naggar, a sailor on the Nile.

"Nothing will change," predicted Alaa al-Aswani, an Egyptian author and political analyst. "Mr. Mubarak is trying to gain time. No one trusts his regime."

Al-Aswani said people will continue to protest until Mubarak leaves office entirely.

Tuesday's speech by Mubarak was the latest since calls began escalating in Egypt for his departure from office. In an address Saturday, Mubarak named a vice president who could be his successor, sacked his Cabinet and promised economic and political changes called for by his protesters.

Earlier Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of chanting demonstrators packed downtown streets while thousands more jammed the airport trying to flee Egypt on Tuesday.

Throngs of men and women waved flags, chanted slogans and hung effigies of Mubarak, reveling in an unprecedented expression of political frustration and anger.

They responded to a call for a "million-man march" and a nationwide strike to force Mubarak from office.

The momentum of the demonstrations, which began a week ago, seems to have caught even the organizers off guard. Mostly young, they promoted their cause on the Internet and "never had it in their mind it would be a revolution," al-Aswani said.

The situation remained fluid earlier on Tuesday:

•The U.S. State Department has ordered non-essential U.S. government personnel and their families to leave the country.

•The exodus of foreigners and Egyptians from Cairo surged as dozens of evacuation planes arrived. About 18,000 passengers swamped the airport in the face of numerous canceled and delayed flights.

•Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei said Mubarak "must leave to avoid bloodshed."

•Egyptian Culture Minister Gaber Asfour said the "revolution" by the country's youth was spontaneous and served as a wake-up call for the government.

•Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai resigned, and King Abdullah asked Marouf Bakhit, a former prime minister, to "launch a genuine political reform process," the Royal Court said in a statement. Hamza Mansour, head of Jordan's Islamic Action Front, said Jordan's largest opposition group wants "an entirely new process, we don't want new names."

•The Western-backed Palestinian government in the West Bank said it will hold council elections "as soon as possible."

In Cairo, groups of protesters poured through the narrow streets, where most businesses have been shuttered for days. Soldiers were positioned with tanks and armored personnel carriers throughout the city, but the army and protesters avoided confrontation.

Some protesters had their faces painted in the Egyptian national colors. Parents carried children on their shoulders. Spectators threw bottles of water to thirsty protesters from the balconies of surrounding buildings.

An effigy of Mubarak hung from a traffic light with a Star of David painted on its chest.

As darkness fell, protesters began singing Egypt's national anthem.

"The determination is unshakable," said Rania al-Malky, editor of the Daily News Egypt, an English-language newspaper. "Right now it is a battle of wills."

Some analysts wonder how long the standoff can continue without a clash. Any march on the presidential palace could spark a clash with the Republican Guard, which is loyal to the president, says Dina Guirguis, research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

It's not clear whether Mubarak has a strong grip on power or whether there is a struggle within his government. The military issued a statement saying it would not interfere in the protests.

"The army is the decisive factor," al-Malky said.

Omar Sulciman, who was appointed to the vacant vice president post in response to the protests, declared that his government was prepared to undertake sweeping changes and encouraged the opposition to come to the negotiating table.

ElBaradei, who has emerged as the most prominent opposition leader, responded that the loose coalition of protesters would be willing to enter talks with the government — but only if Mubarak offered his resignation.

"The message is very clear," al-Aswani said. "They're going to stay in the streets until they hear Mr. Mubarak is leaving."

Opposition parties remain disorganized. Some Egyptians say they are skeptical of ElBaradei, formerly head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, because he has lived for years outside the country.

"He just came back to ride the wave of the people," said Essam Abdul Qader, 64, an accountant.

Many Egyptians are worried about who would take over the country if Mubarak resigns.

"If he leaves power, this country will be lost," said Sayed Naguib, 34, a filmmaker. "We've been living for 30 years in peace, without war."

One of the most organized political groups in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda that seeks to impose a strict Muslim theocracy on Egypt. Though banned by Mubarak, the regime has allowed its members to run for office.

Osama Abu El-Eneen, 25, a pharmacist, said the Muslim Brotherhood may try to use the political unrest to gain power.

"I'm worried about that," he said.

Egyptians have expressed frustration that the U.S. government has not directly called for Mubarak's resignation. The administration says "beautiful words about democracy, but when it comes to real democracy, they do the opposite of what they say," al-Aswani said.

Anti-U.S. sentiment is not at the center of the protests. Protesters have focused exclusively on Mubarak's removal. "I want to express my voice and bring the government down," said Ahmed el Komy, 29, a textile engineer. "We took it for 30 years, we can take it a few more weeks."

Contributing: Melanie Eversley in McLean, Va.; the Associated Press

So who here thinks he will make it to September?

[CaptainChewbacca]

They're threatening to march on the presidential palace Friday if he doesn't get out.