Your Rostra Blogpen – Click on Name for Entries by Each Author … Scroll down for Recent Comments & What’s Hot on Rostra

Have a Hot Political News Tip?

Send us a news tip at info@sdrostra.com

Subscribe: Enter Your Email Address

Archives

Login



 

Recent Comments

Login



Obama a ‘Manchurian President’?

Thursday, February 3, 2011
posted by Assemblymember Marie Waldron
Egyptian leaders feel betrayed by President Obama as he acts in support of opposition to Mubarak.    A World Net Daily article describing Obama’s anti-American actions regarding the Egyptian crisis pose the question of why Obama is appearing to support anti-regime protests.
Seems like a very simple answer:   It is Muslim interests vs. everyone else’s interests, including the U.S.   We see clearly where his true allegiance lies.
It should come as no surprise to anyone.  ♣
Read the entire article HERE
Share


9 Responses to “Obama a ‘Manchurian President’?”

  1. Jason says:

    You simply cannot be serious. Autocratic Egyptian rulers are upset that Obama is siding with millions of Egyptian people, rallying in the streets for real democracy. You side with the people who have made billions off of the back of their people, instead of those struggling to survive on the streets. Protestors are being shot by regime forces. Journalists are being beaten by regime thugs.

    If this were happening in Ohio, or Florida, or anywhere in America, you’d call it a revolution. But because it’s in the Middle East, you don’t seem to care about democracy that much.

  2. Alger says:

    Wow! Has Marie finally lost her mind?

  3. Jim Sills says:

    Gentlemen:

    Egypt, and Mubarak, have scrupulously observed the Camp David accords of 1978…… That agreement has prevented
    another war between Israel and Egypt for the past 33 years.

    In the previous 33 years there were FOUR brutal wars between the two nations (1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973) with resulting devastation for both peoples. Egypt and Israel are more prosperous places today owing to this full Generation of Peace.

    If you were not alive during amy of those 4 wars, you may not know the worldwide fear they caused, since a USA v. Soviet confrontation might have resulted.

    That’s why both Republican and Democratic presidents (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes) had cordial relations with Anwar Sadat, and then Hosni Mubarak.

    So a US president must balance the very real American interest in Mideast peace, against the legitimate desire
    for democratic reforms (and not just in Egypt, of course).

    In short, there is plenty of ground here for reasonable men and women to reasonably disagree about the current Egyptian crisis and how to react.

    It’s worth noting that Councilwoman Marie Waldron has courageously spoken out for reform and progress during
    her service on the Escondido city council.

  4. Assemblymember Marie Waldron Marie says:

    Thanks Jim for comments!

    I was simply forwarding the WND article and not defending Mubarak, but stating the fact that there is more to this than what appears on the surface. However, it is important to note that Obama remained silent during the Iranian peoples protests over their election, but now that the tables are turned and it is the Muslim faction protesting, he is speaking out.
    If you look at the map of the middle east, it is quite evident that the Muslim takeover would surround Israel and force consequences in the Middle East that Mr. Sills refers to.

  5. Jason says:

    Jim, those are great points. You are raising the kind of debate we should be having, whether we value upholding democratic principles as a matter of process, in all cases, even if the outcome isn’t what we want or seeking only to ensure the most desirable policy outcomes, regardless of the process (as has been the case in Egypt over the last 30 years, as you describe). Can ends justify means?

    My original point is only that we deserve better than propaganda, especially from our elected officials. They should drive the debate in the direction that you have, Jim, instead of speaking to the lowest, conspiracy-theorist common denominator.

  6. Jason says:

    Marie:

    Even if I were to allow you to walk back your support for Mubarak, your point about Obama supporting Muslim protests in Egypt and ignoring the Iranian protests is intellectually bankrupt.

    1) Iranian protesting was Muslim v. Muslim. The opposition candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is Shi’a, a denomination of Islam. 98% of Iranians are Muslim.

    2) Egyptian protesting is Muslim v. Muslim. Mubarak is a Sunni, a denomination of Islam. 90% of Egyptians are Muslim.

    If you’re saying that Obama supports Muslim factions when they protest, then he should have been all over Iran, on both sides.

    Also, characterizing the protests as driven by a Muslim faction is inaccurate. Christian protestors have been forming barriers in front of Muslim protestors as they prayed in the streets.

    Your argument that deposing Mubarak with a different Muslim leader would somehow drastically change the status quo is based on the assumption that these Muslim protestors are more extreme than the Muslim leader they already have. I’m assuming that those fears are being driven by Mubarak’s use of the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to drum up support for his regime. The strategy is painfully obvious. Tell the West that if they don’t support him, chaos will ensue and radical Muslims will take over. After the West supports the protestors, create violence and blame it on a sect of Muslims who can serve as the villian, thereby manufacturing the problem you warned against.

    However, alarmist reports about the Brotherhood have been debunked and discredited, leaving only the conspiracy-theorists to spin yarns that serve political purposes.

    The difference between Iran and Egypt is significant. The level of hatred in Iran for the United States far surpasses those sentiments in Egypt. If Obama wanted to encourage the protestors in Iran, he should rightly have stayed out of it. Otherwise, he would have added ammunition for the regime. Egypt, on the other hand, has been an ally for peace in the region. Therefore, supporting protestors in Egypt has a different meaning. The regime cannot take an anti-Western stance because it has supported the West and Israel, beyond the fact that anti-Western rhetoric wouldn’t be effective with the Egyptian people, and the fact that this revolution isn’t about the West. It’s about a corrupt regime being overthrown by a populist, peaceful protests.

    Lastly, are you really granting my point that you believe fighting for democracy ends at the water’s edge? That’s what is sounds like.

  7. Jason says:

    I honestly can’t believe this discussion was prompted by an elected official.

  8. R.D. says:

    Marie sees the bigger picture, she sees through the media that makes it appears as if the Egyptian crisis is somewhat of an Arabic Tea Party seeking freedom and democracy. Although I would love to believe that, but the fact of the matter is that the Muslim Brotherhood along with Iran’s support are behind this uprising. Look throughout the middle east, it is not just Eygpt, it is Arabian wide.

    The Muslim brotherhood are not a peaceful non violent group. They are the Largest and oldest political group started in the 1920′s by an admirer of Adolph Hitler. Their Ideology is simple, Quran is the law, jihad is their way and dying for Allah is their greatest hope.

    I have often hoped that Obama was not a Muslim at heart but we can no longer deny his evil associations with dictators of the world.

    Jason needs to look up some History about the Muslim Brotherhood, learn some new history and I think he will see that the Eygptioan crisis is not what it appears.

    If this regime, although not great, falls; and falls under the control of the Muslim brotherhood, It will be obvious to those who doubt. Hopefully we will not have to have that I told you so moment.

    If this occurs the region will become unstabe, Israel will be at risk, oil exports will be threatened and world trade will be compromised.

  9. Jim Sills says:

    Jason:

    Thanks to that well-respected elected official, chosen
    by her neighbors three times to the city council, we are
    having this intelligent exchange of views & information.
    on SD Rostra. We often criticize political US leaders for
    ducking Hot Issues. Marie Waldron did not do so, and
    I respect her for her [long-standing] courage,

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.