The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

I have been reading the discussion amongst John Guardiano, John Tabin and Jim Antle concerning the ongoing political turmoil in Egypt with great interest. Independent of this discussion, I have also expressed my own concerns.

In two of his posts, Guardiano invokes former President George W. Bush. Now I happen to believe that Bush was at his most eloquent during his Second Inaugural Address. A couple of years ago, when I was engaged a kitchen table debate with my roommate's father (who is a TV reporter in Hartford) about Bush he asked me to cite anything meaningful he ever uttered. I replied by quoting from that speech, "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

President Obama ought to have heeded Bush's wise counsel after the Iranian "elections" in 2009.

But do we really want to stand with people who stand for these sentiments? We need to think long and hard about it.

There is no doubt that Egyptians want a better lot in life and want to be able to determine their own destiny and that has been all but impossible under Mubarak. Yet I think it is most imprudent to downplay the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are, after all, the largest opposition group in Egypt and the Obama Administration appears comfortable with the idea of working with them. Yet what is there to distinguish the Muslim Brotherhood from Hamas? Thus under the circumstances I think conservative pessimism about Egypt is entirely warranted and well grounded in reason.

View all comments (13) | Leave a comment

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.1.11 @ 1:46PM

Darn it, Aaron
The Egyptians are going to decide what happens...in EGYPT!

I am not encouraged.
Heck, we are the most educated people in the world...and look where we are.
Yuck!

Alan Brooks| 2.1.11 @ 5:49PM

Of course there will megadeath in Egypt,
that is what happens in third world cesspools.
Visualize whirled peas.

Pete| 2.1.11 @ 1:59PM

"There is no doubt that Egyptians want a better lot in life and want to be able to determine their own destiny and that has been all but impossible under Mubarak. "

And such a thing is possible with whom in charge of Egypt???? I'm just asking.

David W| 2.1.11 @ 2:01PM

What was the response of your roommate's father? Did he go "Oh, hmmm, maybe I need to rethink my opinion of President Bush?" or did he say something typically liberally....?

Derek Leaberry| 2.1.11 @ 2:35PM

$ 4+ a gallon gasoline should bring glee to Republicans for 2012. Now if a decent conservative would run, that would be icing on the cake.

USAttorney| 2.1.11 @ 3:16PM

@ Derek
I see a great R. Perry/N. Gingrich ticket if they could put aside ego, and a great oddball ticket of M. Romney/H. Barbour. Thoughts?

@Ken

I have to agree with you

Mr. Goldstone may have some bias. Is there a pro-semitism label to counter anti-semitic? See the Hamas reference. We Americans are always trying to put things in boxes: Well, you see the Supreme Leader is like Pope-King and the President is like a C.E.O. and...No, these titles and roles are different but we generally make token effort to appreciate the differences. Some things cannot be related functionally to something familiar. Even the idea of democracy has nuances from Greece to Britain to the U.S. We should come out strongly in favor of the rule of law while encouraging Mubarek behind the scenes to announce his promise not to seek another term. Stable transition in place to our version of democratic governance (they have had elections you know), and time to build secular leaders for the opposition.

Red Phillips| 2.1.11 @ 4:54PM

USAttorney, I don't think you know Mr. Leaberry very well if you think he would be happy with Perry, Gingrich or Romney. But I'll let him answer.

Alan Brooks| 2.1.11 @ 5:52PM

Who do you want for president, Red? David Duke?
He's tanned, rested, and ready.

Red Phillips| 2.1.11 @ 6:27PM

You know who I want to be President Alan, Ron Paul.

Occam's Tool| 2.1.11 @ 6:04PM

What's wrong with Perry?

Red Phillips| 2.1.11 @ 6:28PM

As far as I know, he is not a non-interventionist.

Derek Leaberry| 2.2.11 @ 3:29PM

I would be displeased with all three. If any of the three was to receive the Republican nomination, I would extend my streak of not voting for the Republican presidential candidate to six elections.

Occam's Tool| 2.1.11 @ 6:03PM

The term is for pro-semitism is philo-semitism. Like Anglophile or Francophile.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/01/conservative-pessimism-about-e

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT