The Other McCain

The magic words of President Obama’s speech apparently failed to pacify the Egyptian masses and — as of 5 p.m. in Cairo (10 a.m. ET) — the crowds in Tahrir Square were fighting with sticks and stones.

As much as I’d like to spend today blogging about domestic politics — and Kim Kardashian’s nude photos — it looks like those dimwit protesters are going to require me to pay attention to them again.

Don’t the idiots in Egypt know that when the Community Organizer says “the aftermath of these protests,” that means it’s time to stop protesting?

UPDATE: Hope and Change via Twitter:

Anderson Cooper punched 10 times in the head as pro-Mubarak mob surrounds him and his crew at Cairo rally – CNN manager

Just so you know, I blame NBC for sending Brian Williams to Cairo. When the No. 1 U.S. network anchor comes to town, Middle Eastern custom requires that the “Arab street” throw a riot in his honor.

UPDATE II: Conservatives for America was on this story early:

Army tanks seen moving as protesters confront one another; Egyptian military calls for end of protests: “Your message has arrived, your demands known.”

It appears that the pro-Mubarak forces took his speech Tuesday night as a signal to get out in the street and start whuppin’ some butts:

Allahpundit asks:

What’s the White House going to say about Mubarak rolling out his goon squad to clear the Square? Are we still in “orderly transition” mode, or is it now time for “Mubarak must go”?

We don’t know the answer to those questions. Nor do we know how Markos Moulitsas plans to blame this riot on Sarah Palin.

UPDATE III: CNN reports:

Supporters of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak flooded into Cairo’s Tahrir Square Wednesday after the president’s opponents dominated the scene for more than a week.
Separated at first by barriers, the rival demonstrators exchanged insults, then began throwing anything they could find at each other, including shoes, rocks and sticks.
Suddenly the barriers came down. People surged toward each other in a chaotic scene that conjured images of a revolution.
Some injured protesters fell. Others stumbled through the crowd. Blood streamed down the faces of the injured.
Many of the injuries were serious, even though demonstrators wrapped sweatshirts and other clothes around their heads to protect themselves from flying stones.

Note the wishful-thinking aspect of the phrase “a chaotic scene that conjured images of a revolution.” The reporter who wrote that is trying to project onto this riot — which is, so far as we can see, merely a riot — a world-historical significance, as if he were reporting from St. Petersburg in 1917.

UPDATE IV: Doug Mataconis:

It’s been a surreal scene unfolding this morning, perhaps most of all being the images of “pro-Mubarak forces” storming into Tahir Square on horse and camel back . . .

Yeah, they’re riding camels. Way to fight back against those stereotypes, you guys.

UPDATE V: In Desperate Bid to End Cairo Violence, Levi Johnston’s Sister Agrees to Pose Nude

UPDATE VI: Speaking of photos you don’t want to see, images of the rioting mob in Cairo prompt Stephen Green’s rumination:

This picture from today’s Wall Street Journal reminded me that this is what you don’t get, when you have regular elections with honest results — and a resulting government which responds to the people’s wishes.
And then I thought back to the President’s State of the Union address last week and went: Uh-oh.

BTW, please excuse my sarcasm toward today’s riots. For nearly a week, American pundits kept looking at the Egyptian unrest through the prism of “What Does This Mean for Obama?”

It was obvious that the MSM wanted this story to be about Obama, so when the president jumped into this situation, made himself the protagonist of the drama, and then gave his big speech Tuesday night, my reaction was, “OK, that’s it. The Bringer of Light hath spoken, and now we have peace.”

Then I turned my TV to MSNBC this morning and saw the “Morning Joe” crew breathlessly hyping up the Cairo riot and said to myself, “Wait a minute? Why are these guys acting so enthusiastic about deadly violence?”

At which point I realized that NBC had flown its anchor, Brian Williams, to the scene and the network didn’t want the unrest to end before they’d gotten a big ratings boost out of it — and the 24/7 coverage is making it worse. The rioters wouldn’t be rioting if the TV news cameras weren’t there to broadcast the whole thing live. This is like American Idol auditions for jihadis, and now every two-bit student radical in Egypt is trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.

Lights! Camera! Molotov cocktails!

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: OK, Obama just gave his speech, saying he had spoken to Hosni Mubarak and that the transition “must begin now.” Obama also spoke of U.S. support for Egypt in “the aftermath of these protests,” indicating that he thinks the protests are now in the past tense.

The president looked somewhat angry. MSNBC analysts seemed confused as to Obama’s meaning. But Chris Matthews is one of those analysts, and he’s always confused about everything.

UPDATE 7:05 p.m. ET: Washington Post:

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s announcement Tuesday that he will not seek reelection in September was less than the Obama administration had hoped for . . .
[Officials] said that the administration’s “prevailing view” since last weekend has been that an agreement by Mubarak not to run again was insufficient.

So Obama is unhappy, but he didn’t say explicitly that Mubarak must leave now. Like I said, though, Obama had an angry look on his face.

UPDATE 7:15 p.m. ET: Video via PBS:

“What is clear, what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now. Furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that’s not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”

Linked by Donald Douglas at American Power and by Bob Belevedere at the Camp of the Saints.

UPDATE 9:30 p.m. ET: Lots of criticism of Obama’s handling of the crisis. John Hinderaker at Power Line:

It is obvious to everyone that our government has no control over events in Egypt; that the sort of explosion now taking place has long been predicted, yet was not foreseen; and that Obama has been sitting back, awaiting developments, before deciding what way to jump. Now that it is clear that Mubarak’s regime cannot survive, he pretends to get out front of the Egyptian popular movement and to tell it, and Mubarak, what to do. That’s the way it looks, anyway.

Allahpundit:

The money line that’s being picked up by news outlets and touted on Twitter is, “an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.” But what does “now” mean? Didn’t Mubarak already begin the transition process today by agreeing not to run again in the fall? Didn’t he do precisely what Obama asked him to do, in fact? To listen to this, you’d think the White House was somehow displeased by his recalcitrance even though he’s following the advice they’ve given him.

After blogging all day about this stuff, I’m just tired of it now. As far as I’m concerned, the crisis is over — at least until tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I’m getting back to blogging about serious stuff like Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian’s big booty.

PREVIOUSLY: As predicted earlier today, when Ed Morrissey seemed rather placid about the situation in Egypt, Allahpundit is now bringing us the more pessimistic Fear and Loathing in Cairo version of the story.

Strangely enough, after Mubarak’s speech, now I’m trending toward optimism for the first time since this mess began:

Yes, the protesters in Cairo and other major cities were dissatisfied with the speech, shouting “Leave! Leave!” and “Not Enough!” but Mubarak wasn’t speaking to them. Rather, he was speaking to the 70 million or so Egyptians who haven’t participated in the protests. And he was appealing to them in explicitly patriotic terms.
“The Hosni Mubarak who speaks to you today is proud of his achievements over the years in serving Egypt and its people,” he said during his speech, “This is my country. This is where I lived, I fought and defended its land, sovereignty and interests, and I will die on its soil.” . . .

You can read the rest of my take at The American Spectator, and now we await an Obama speech in reaction to Mubarak’s speech.

UPDATE: Still waiting for the speech. Michelle Malkin is in the pessimism camp as to the prospect that Mubarak’s speech will avert the crisis. Robert Spencer at JihadWatch is also pessimistic.

Photo: Khalil Hamra/AP via Toronto Globe & Mail

“An estimated one million people have gathered in Tahrir Square . . .  fulfilling the hopes of opponents of Hosni Mubarak’s regime who wanted to make this the biggest protest since demonstrations began a week ago. Protesters believe this could be the last few hours of Mubarak’s rule, but it remains unclear whether they will march on the presidential palace as planned.”

The Guardian‘s resident Middle East expert says:

Not sure how much effect today’s protest will have on the US. The US is demanding reforms from the regime – and quickly. Mubarak can’t deliver that, even if he wanted to, because opposition figures are refusing to talk to the regime until he is gone. So for that reason the US attitude is likely to harden against Mubarak over the coming days.

The Egyptian opposition’s demand for Mubarak’s immediate ouster as a pre-condition of any discussion with the government is a familiar tactic of radicalism.

UPDATE: The Associated Press:

More than a quarter-million people flooded into the heart of Cairo Tuesday, filling the city’s main square in by far the largest demonstration in a week of unceasing demands for President Hosni Mubarak to leave after nearly 30 years in power.
Protesters streamed into Tahrir, or Liberation, Square, among them people defying a government transportation shutdown to make their way from rural provinces in the Nile Delta. . . .
Organizers said the aim was to intensify marches to get the president out of power by Friday . . .
While demonstrators initially planned to march to the presidential palace – which was surrounded by some 60 tanks – they remained instead at Tahrir Square. Some began to drift away after the curfew began at 3 p.m. local time.

UPDATE II: Whether it’s a million protesters or merely “more than a quarter-million,” the weeklong protests are not helping the Egyptian economy:

Egypt’s economy approached paralysis on Monday as foreign commerce, tourism and banking all but halted . . . .
International companies closed plants and sent workers home or out of the country; food staples went undelivered to stores; and banks remained closed during a week when many Egyptians, who are routinely paid monthly, would receive their paychecks.
A major ratings agency cut the country’s bond rating, while shortages led to rising prices.

Via Hot Air Headlines. Meanwhile, as Egypt teeters on the brink, the Obama administration is concentrating on its P.R. image:

Days of mounting unrest in Egypt have turned into a delicate public relations challenge for the White House as a number of new players in the West Wing try to craft messages for President Obama that will resonate well overseas and at home.
The president’s advisers on Monday struggled to maintain a carefully calibrated position regarding the future of Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, in the face of intense pressure from protesters in Egypt and tough questions from the American press corps.

Wonderful: In a situation requiring statesmanship, instead the White House is focused on spin.

UPDATE III: Da Tech Guy points out that this is one of those rare occasions when Richard Cohen is right:

The next Egyptian government – or the one after – might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval.

Meanwhile, John Kerry maintains his record of being 100% wrong.

UPDATE IV: What is remarkable is how so many bien pensant liberals who relentlessly warn about the dangerous influences of “extremists” in American politics are, despite all evidence of hateful extremism in the Cairo mob, sanguine about the prospects of “democracy” in Egypt.

There seems to be an idea that, while the U.S. is unable to enforce its will via the continuation of the Mubarak regime, nevertheless we can enforce our will by “managing” the Egyptian revolution. Unfortunately, history illustrates the folly of such ambitions, as Drew M. warns at AOSHQ:

Remember, it isn’t always the ones who topple the government who wind up in control after the original government is gone. There’s usually a pretty nasty group waiting in the wings to knock off the happy talking reformers and re-institute tyranny, just with another name.

This goes back to the Cold War. One reason the U.S. so often supported authoritarian anti-Communist “strong man” regimes in the Third World for more than four decades — from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union — was that such a policy had the virtue of simplicity.

We didn’t have to address the multitudinous grievances of a mob of foreigners. We didn’t have to try to understand their culture or decipher their language or try to make sense of a kaleidoscopic whirl of shifting factions. No, all we had to do was to keep sending guns and money to the anti-communist strong man and let him keep a lid on it, to prevent the outbreak of one of those “brushfire” guerrilla wars that the Soviets were always trying to foment.

That was the realpolitik calculus of our Cold War foreign policy: So long as the U.S.-allied strong man stayed in power, his country was not part of the Soviet-led anti-American communist coalition, and to hell with everything else.

Of course, that policy never had any shortage of critics who accused the U.S. of “imperialism” and a cynical disregard for “human rights,” but as we now look back at the Cold War — approaching the Reagan centennial — isn’t it time to admit that it worked? And if, as we are told, Islamic jihad is an existential menace comparable to Soviet communism, shouldn’t we consider the lessons of the Cold War as applicable to contemporary foreign policy?

You can answer such questions in the negative — many of my libertarian and paleoconservative friends do — but the problem remains of how to prevent a post-Mubarak Egypt (and other Islamic countries that may be swept up in a series of “democratic” revolutions) from becoming part of a radicalized international caliphate with outposts among Muslim immigrant communities here. This potential development is what the ravings of the Cairo street mobs portend, and we ignore these omens at our peril.

UPDATE V: “The Euphoria Is Fading.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• 2/1: Egyptian Mob Explains That ‘Freedom’ Means ‘We Got to Destroy Israel’
• 1/31: Your Daily Egyptian Update
• 1/30: ‘Regime Change’ in Egypt?
• 1/29: Egyptian Uprising: Latest Updates
• 1/29: Egypt: ‘Attaboy, Mubarak’?
• 1/28: ‘Whose Bright Idea Was It to Send Joe Biden Out to Talk About Egypt?’
• 1/27: Egyptian Regime Unraveling?