Over the last few weeks, some strange events have happened in Afghanistan. Just a couple of weeks ago, there was the accidental burning of the Quran by American troops, an act that increased an already tensed situation in the country between Afghans and American soldiers and caused the president of the United States to issue an apology. Now, we hear the story of an American soldier who opened fire on Afghan civilians, killing at least 16 men, women and children.
Although an initial report suggests that the soldier involved in the shooting went “crazy,” that wasn’t the first thought that came to my mind. Although my reasoning may seemed a bit far fetched, consider this for a moment: the war in Afghanistan is in its final phase and is coming to an end. With the war in Iraq already brought to a successful conclusion, ending this unpopular conflict in Afghanistan would boost president Obama’s favorable ratings among a war-wary American public.
In the middle of an election year with an economy moving in the right direction and with a Republican opposition party determined to make sure this president fails, would it really be that far fetched to wonder if they are behind these random acts of violence? Is it wrong to wonder if money was exchanged to cause more tension in Afghanistan so that Republicans can say, see, we were right. We should stay in Afghanistan longer, but president Obama wants to end the war. He knows nothing about being Commander In Chief. He’s wrong and we were right.
Normally, this would not be the first thing I think about hearing about these different incidents in Afghanistan, but with the current toxic nature of our politics and with the do anything to win mentality of some in Washington, I wouldn’t put it past them to use this war as a political ploy to win an election. They are, after all… politicians. They are, after all… Republicans.
President Obama’s speech at AIPAC – American Israel Public Affairs Committee – reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to the safety of Israel.
But as you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last three years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture – at every fork in the road – we have been there for Israel. Every single time.
Four years ago, I stood before you and said that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” That belief has guided my actions as President. The fact is, my Administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every year. We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology – the type of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
If 2011 will go down in history as a terrible year economically, it will also be known as a turning point year for participatory and representative democracy in many countries throughout the world. True people power, spurred on by technology, second-to-second communications, and defiance of imposing police/military power proved more resilient than even the craftiest dictators. The movements that succeeded in overthrowing one-party, one person or one-ideology governments were not always smooth, and in many cases there is far more work to be done in order for the revolutions to hold onto their gains, but the people who have changed governments are now living in an altered world.
Consider the promise of democracy (the United States still needs to work on some of these):
Where democracy lives, citizens do not fear the state.
Where democracy lives, the press is freer, but must be more subservient to the truth than ever before.
Where democracy lives, the military belongs to the people.
Where democracy lives, women, ethnic and religious minorities, and people of all sexual orientations have full civil rights.
Where democracy lives, economic and educational opportunities are available to all levels of society.
Where democracy lives, the political process is messier, more susceptible to special interests and harder to corral, but power rests with the people.
Where democracy lives, justice systems must restore or establish the rule of law, not the rule of the open palm.
As for the countries that are under the most serious political pressure from their citizens,
This will not be easy, and it’s not clear if the citizens of these countries will eventually taste the fruits of new-found freedom, or if the benefits of democracy will touch their lives. But they are well on their way towards a more productive, politically freer future than they were 12 months ago. The United States has a responsibility to help nurture these democratic movements, even if we aren’t supportive of the groups that are elected under their new political realities.
My hope is that over the next 12 months, more people in the United States and the world over will become involved in their country’s political process from every band of the political spectrum. It’s essential that we have vibrant debate and a full airing of the issues that face us if we are to progress and solve our problems.
So in addition to losing weight, resolve to do one thing that will make the country and the world a better place for all of us. Register to vote. Join an organization. Contact your representative and establish a working relationship with them on an issue. Start a social media site to highlight a concern you have. Be part of the solution.
Another promise kept, as Republicans continue chastising the president for following through on his word to end the unpopular war.
“After nearly nine years of war, tens of thousands of casualties –including 4,500 dead — and more than $800 billion spent, the U.S. military on Thursday formally ended its mission in Iraq and prepared to leave the country,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
New York Times: “The tenor of the farewell ceremony, officially called ‘Casing the Colors,’ was likely to sound an uncertain trumpet for a war that was launched to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction it did not have and now ends without the sizable, enduring American military presence for which many officers had hoped. The tone of the string of ceremonies culminating with the final withdrawal event on Thursday has been understated in keeping with an administration that campaigned to end an unpopular war it inherited.”
In all fairness, the decision to leave Iraq was made between the Bush administration and the leaders of Iraq. But this important little fact means absolutely nothing to Republicans, as they continue accusing this president of wrongly bringing this war to an end.
Historians today question the decisions of Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain during the 1930’s. Mr. Chamberlain wanted to avoid a major conflict with Nazi Germany, so he engaged in what some called, an “appeasement foreign policy,” which many historian believed allowed Hitler to grow too strong, causing mass devastation to the Jewish people
In the case of politics, appeasement is usually used to describe a leader who’s weak on foreign policies, one who prefers to “sell out” instead of standing firm for his/her beliefs.
At a Jewish meeting earlier this week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used the word “appeasement” a total of seven times when describing President Obama’s foreign policies. A well-played attack of the President by Romney, as the word itself brings back a very negative meaning for the Jewish people – a very strong voting block in American politics.
“Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy,” Romney said. “Appeasement betrays a lack of faith in America, in American strength and in America’s future.”
But Romney is not the only Republican candidate using the word to describe President Obama’s foreign policies. Newt Gingrich has said it on a few different occasions. “America is the first business of the State Department,” Gingrich said at a recent meeting,”not appeasing our opponents.” Gingrich also said that he is often worried, and the cause of his worries are “based on a State Department which has consistently engaged in appeasement.”
Yesterday, a White House reporter asked President Obama to respond to the Republicans appeasement claims. His answer, in my view, was classic;
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement –or whoever’s left out there, ask them about that.”
Republicans have no legs to stand on when it comes to foreign policies, and their willful effort to lie to the American people, trying to suggest that President Obama is a weak leader on foreign issues when the opposite is so blatantly obvious, is pure insanity.
Bringing the troops home. It was a promise Barack Obama made while campaigning for President, and now, less than three years into his first term, President Obama is keeping yet another promise.
He made it official today by announcing that all American troops remaining in Iraq will be home for the holidays. He thanked them for a job well done and promised them all the benefits they have earned in serving their country.
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales, a U.S. official told CNN. The rest will be out of Iraq by December 31.
The president said he was making good on his 2008 campaign pledge to end a war that has divided the nation since it began in 2003 and claimed more than 4,400 American lives.The announcement also came after talks that might have allowed a continued major military presence broke down amid disputes about whether U.S. troops would be immune to prosecution by Iraqi authorities.
A great read by Jake Tapper. A list of some of the terrorists killed or captured under the leadership of the Obama Administration. This is something the Republicans would not want the American people to know about. Although September 11th happened under the Bush Administration, Republicans will still try to claim some special authority when it comes to protecting the American people.
Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest ofYounis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leaderBaitullah Mahsudwas killed in Pakistan.
In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational plannerNoordin Muhammad Topwas killed in Indonesia, and AQEA plannerSaleh Ali Saleh Nabhanwas killed in Somalia.
Another of Al Qaeda’s highest ranking leaders was killed on Friday by the CIA. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents in 1971 became a radical preacher and used his teachings to recruit followers in the US and Britain. Investigations showed that al-Awlaki was influential in the Fort Hood shooting, where 13 people died at the hands of gunman Nidal Hasan.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Islamic preacher who rose to the highest level of al Qaeda’s franchise in Yemen, was killed in a CIA-directed strike upon his convoy, carried out with the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command’s firepower, according to a counterterrorist official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.
Al-Awlaki had been under observation for three weeks while they waited for the right opportunity to strike, one U.S. official said.
Already, Fox News is trying to creditGeorge Bush and his policy of waterboarding for this capture/killing. On the so-called news network Fox, Gretchen Carlson said that under President Obama’s administration “it seems that we don’t prosecute or ask the same questions that we might have under the Bush Administration, so would we get anything out of him anyway if we captured them?”
Fox was also instrumental in framing the lie that Osama Bin Laden’s capture was solely because of Bush. Somehow, this is not surprising.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down for an exclusive interview with Lawrence O’ Donnell last night, and continued her defense of the Bush administration and their decisions to invade Iraq. She also credits Mr. Bush for the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, saying that a lot of the things Bush did, directly lead to Bin Laden’s demise.
When Lawrence pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was wrong and based on a flawed report, Miss Rice got irritated and threatened to walk out on the interview.
Five months after September 11th 2001, the Bush administration shifted focus from Afghanistan and zeroed in on Iraq. One would think that after this interview, the reasons would be more clear. One would be wrong to think that.
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
President Barack Obama
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Seems the Obama Administration had their hand on the pulse of the Egypt uprising since last August. According to reporting from The New York Times, President Obama ordered a secret report detailing areas of unrest in the Arab world, and ways to assist the people of this region to peacefully absolve the political conflict. The report, called The Presidential Study Directive, focused on Egypt and other places, including Yemen and Bahrain.
The Times report states;
In Yemen, too, officials said Mr. Obama worried that the administration’s intense focus on counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda was ignoring a budding political crisis, as angry young people rebelled against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, an autocratic leader of the same vintage as Mr. Mubarak.
“Whether it was Yemen or other countries in the region, you saw a set of trends” — a big youth population, threadbare education systems, stagnant economies and new social network technologies like Facebook and Twitter — that was a “real prescription for trouble,” another official said.
The White House held weekly meetings with experts from the State Department, the C.I.A. and other agencies. The process was led by Dennis B. Ross, the president’s senior adviser on the Middle East; Samantha Power, a senior director at the National Security Council who handles human rights issues; and Gayle Smith, a senior director responsible for global development.
The administration kept the project secret, officials said, because it worried that if word leaked out, Arab allies would pressure the White House, something that happened in the days after protests convulsed Cairo.
This Youtube video by Moustafa Mahmoud shows a birds-eye view of what started out as a peaceful protest in Alexandria Egypt, until about 1:30 seconds into the video, when an individual walks up an alley, hands raised and jacket opened. A few moments later, he is shot by Egypt’s secret police.
The Youtube video is called, “Death in Alexandria.”
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
