[Note: for this one column, the writer will forego the pose of being "the World's Laziest Journalist" and use traditional debating form to address a possible explanation of the events in Egypt, which has seemed to stymie both liberal and conservative pundits.]
In 1980, the Republicans conspired with radical Muslims to use the Iranian hostages as pawns in the Presidential Election process, so it isn't inconceivable that some Republicans might stoop that low again for the same reason. It could it even be that the same Republicans who negotiated with the Iranians for the release of the American hostages are again using stealth deals to influence American politics. Didn't the Republicans use agreements with Muslim extremists to get the money to use in the Iran-Contra deal? Was that ever fully investigated beyond the level of sending some low level intermediaries to jail? Who gave the marching orders to those intermediaries?
Who were the Americans who worked out the details for clandestine money and weapons, in the late Eighties (?), to help the Afghan rebels repulse the Russian invasion? Since the White House was occupied by Republicans from 1980 to 1992, you don't think they let any Democrats play a substantial role in that caper, do you?
What prominent American political family is known for its political ties to the House of Saud in Arabia? Who are the workers who help maintain that cozy relationship?
Did Republicans working on the Policy for a New American Century (PNAC) project express a hope for a "new Pearl Harbor" during the Clinton Administration? Did some such invigorating and inspiring event eventually take place and deliver a unified country into the hands of the people who expressed that wish?
Did George W. Bush use a photo-op moment to make a solemn pledge to the American people to deliver justice to Osama bin Laden (a member of a family that like his own was heavily involved in the Carlyle Group)? Did George W. Bush's military make a deal with local Muslims to apprehend the culprit and didn't that bit of delegating authoritiy "inadvertently" let the fellow slip into oblivion that all the best CIA efforts can't penetrate?
Would there be enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that a deal was made to let the fugitive escape in return for a promise that no further terrorist attacks would be made inside the USA while the Bush family was in the Oval Office?
Was a heavy emphasis placed on the principle of spreading democracy to explain the need for sending the United States military forces into both Afghanistan and Iraq?
In the early phase of the coverage of the unrest in Egypt didn't some reports say that the protesters might have been coordinated on the Internets with help from some CIA controlled personnel?
When "Departure Day" arrived in Egypt, was there any possible outcome which would bolster President Obama's chances for reelection?
Events in Egypt had put the Democrats in a box canyon ambush situation because they can't say that Bush was prescient about the invasion of Iraq causing a large increase in demands from Muslims for democracy in their home countries, they can't say that the charges that the USA is an imperialistic country meddling in the internal affairs of another country aren't true, and they sure as heck can't say Obama looks ineffectual and impotent because that would sound like they were making the Republican talking points to be used in the next Presidential election.
Who stands to gain from the current crisis situation?
Consider this: If a Republican is elected in 2012, won't most pundits point to this week's events in Egypt as the turning point and say that from then on, Obama was doomed to be a one term President? No matter what happens now in Egypt, can't all Republicans say that Obama botched things just as Jimmy Carter did with the Iranian Hostage Crisis? Won't the Republicans be very happy to say that, thanks to the ruling on Health care by a Reagan appointed judge and the fiasco in Egypt, Obama's record was a null set?
Now let's ask another question: Who had more sway with the CIA; a former Senator who hadn't served one full term or a family with two former Presidents (one of whom was a former CIA director) and a viable candidate in the next election?
Who has more clout in the Muslim world: A family that has close financial ties with the House of Saud and the bin Laden family or a prote'ge'e of Henry Kissinger? (Didn't Obama's mother work with Henry the K? Didn't Kissinger help the young Mr. Obama get a job out in Chicago?)
The conservatives have two ways to refute this hypothetical explanation for recent events in Egypt: they can assume that they can just ignore a rogue pundit who isn't a member of the "in crowd" of liberal bloggers and that his latest column will not be noticed even by members of his own posse or they can use the standard political response of an ad hominem rebuttal. If Charles Manson wrote this column, debating referees would have to consider the information in the column for use in marking their score cards and not be swayed by any effort to sidetrack their judgment on to the topic of the personality of the writer.