Obama the Bystander
When it comes to Egypt, Charles Krauthammer dubs the president, "Obama the bystander again," NRO reports, linking to video of Krauthammer on the Fox News All Star Panel today:
Charles Krauthammer had harsh words for the president’s response to the mass anti-government demonstrations taking place in Egypt: “Obama the bystander again. Here are the Egyptians in the millions, out on the street, trying to bring down an Islamist government — increasingly dictatorial, increasingly intolerant, arresting journalists and judgues, trying to Islamicize the military — and the people are saying, ‘No,’ and what does the president of the United States do? He takes a position of studied neutrality; he says he’s not supporting either side.”
Krauthammer compared the Egyptian situation to that of Iran during the abortive Green Revolution of 2009, during which “the same thing happened . . . they were shouting ‘Obama, Obama, are you with us or against us? And he took a position that was essentially support of the regime . . . . That was a shameful episode.”
While Krauthammer acknowledged that Morsi had been democratically elected, he insisted that “The Brotherhood is not a democratic party . . . it’s a movement that has an ideology; its allegiance is Islam.” He pointed out several examples of despots who came to power through democratic elections, including Vladimir Putin in Russia, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Hitler in Germany, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
And as Ace wrote yesterday at the Breitbart.com group blog along with photos of yesterday's mammoth protests, "Hey, Remember When the Media Covered the Tahir Square Uprising As If It Were the Most Important Democratic Event Since the Fall of the Soviet Union?"
[This weekend's massive protests] are very positive, very hopeful, and potentially very momentous events. These protests might mark the real beginning of the Arab Spring, as people turn from the promises of an Islamist Paradise on Earth towards a more realistic and mature concept of self-government and democracy.
Is the American media really so provincial and so hopelessly partisan that they can't find any interest in covering them unless they somehow can be cast as Vindications of The One?
I already know the answer, of course.
For all the American media's pretensions and claims of professionalism, they truly are a vile, childish, unserious and unprofessional bunch of provincial rubes compared to their counterparts in the European press. The foreign press sure seems to think this is a big deal. They seem to think it's an important story in its own right, without any concern of "how it makes Obama look."
The Egyptian demonstrators displayed huge banners saying, "Wake Up America Obama Backs Up a Fascist Regime in Egypt," as displayed in the photo atop this post at Power Line, causing John Hinderaker to write:
What is bizarre is that Obama hasn’t just tolerated the Brotherhood’s rise to power, he has abetted it. It would be defensible to argue that we have little power to influence events in Egypt, and, moreover, attempts on our part to exercise influence are likely to backfire; therefore we should stand aside and do nothing. But why Obama would consider it a good idea to put America’s thumb on the scale on the side of the Brotherhood is beyond me.
You're welcome to explore that last sentence in the comment section if you like...