This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Changed Washington Rhetoric
On January 30, Reuters said "Obama voiced support for an 'orderly transition' in Egypt that is responsive to the aspirations of Egyptians in phone calls with foreign leaders, the White House said on Sunday."
His rhetoric mentioned opposing violence, showing restraint, supporting universal rights, peaceful assembly and association, and free speech, what, in fact, Washington disdains globally, including at home.
Also on January 30, New York Times writer Mark Landler headlined, "Clinton Calls for 'Orderly Transition' in Egypt," saying:
She "called (for) a more politically open Egypt, stopping short of telling (Mubarak) to step down but clearly laying the groundwork for his departure." In fact, she suggested Washington wants him out. He'll get time to go, and aid will continue, despite January 28 White House comments saying it was under review.
In its January 28 editorial headlined "Washington and Mr. Mubarak," The Times suggested support for regime change, calling him "arrogan(t) and tone-deaf, (meeting) spiraling protests with spiraling levels of force and repression, (as well as showing) more....weakness than strength (by) shut(ting) down Internet access and cellphone service."
The Times has a longstanding history of supporting wealth, power, and imperial interests. It's also Washington's lead voice, so excoriating Mubarak suggests official administration policy, meaning his time has passed - gracefully if cooperative, violently if not, but one way or other he's gone.
On January 29, Haaretz News Agencies headlined "Sacking Egyptian ministers not enough, US State Department says," quoting spokesman PJ Crowley saying:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
