Vice-president accused of creating a ‘disastrous scenario’, as demonstration in Tahrir Square enters 16th day Egyptian protesters have reacted with a mixture of alarm and defiance to a warning from the vice-president, Omar Suleiman, that there could be a coup if they do not accept the regime’s timetable for a transition to democratic rule. Abdul-Rahman Samir, a spokesman for a coalition of the five main youth groups behind the protests in Tahrir Square , said Suleiman was creating “a disastrous scenario” as demonstrations entered their 16th day, spreading from the square to the parliament building and other government offices, including the department of civil aviation. “He is threatening to impose martial law, which means everybody in the square will be smashed,” Samir said. “But what would he do with the rest of the 70 million Egyptians who will follow us afterwards?” Khaled Abdel-Hamid, another youth organiser dismissed Suleiman’s warnings. “We are striking and we will protest and we will not negotiate until Mubarak steps down. Whoever wants to threaten us, then let them do so,” he said. Protesters said the organisers were working on plans to move on to the state radio and television building on Friday, the day of the next big scheduled demonstration, and trying to draw powerful labour unions into support for their cause. The protests are aready spreading. Teachers are going on strike and there have been walkouts in one factory in the textile town of Mahalla. About 3,000 workers in companies owned by the Suez Canal authorities and based in Ismailia and Suez went on strike on Tuesday over pay and conditions, while workers in canal-owned companies in Port Said took industrial action on Wednesday, although the crucial shipping route was operating with little disruption. Should shipping companies, however, decide to avoid the canal and sail round the Cape of Good Hope, Egypt would lose a major source of revenue. Tolls collected reached $4.3bn (£2.7bn) from January to the end of November 2010. Analysts from the French bank Credit Agricole estimate the crisis is costing Egypt $310m a day. Egypt’s biggest tourist attraction, the Pyramids of Giza, reopened to tourists on Wednesday although tens of thousands of foreigners have fled Egypt amid the chaos. In his comments on Tuesday night, Suleiman rejected any immediate departure for President Hosni Mubarak or any “end to the regime”. “We can’t bear this for a long time,” he said of the Tahrir protests. “There must be an end to this crisis as soon as possible.” Speaking to editors of state and independent newspapers, he said the regime wanted to resolve the crisis through dialogue, adding: “We don’t want to deal with Egyptian society with police tools.” If dialogue is not successful, he said, the alternative is “that a coup happens, which would mean uncalculated and hasty steps, including lots of irrationalities”. Osama Saraya, editor-in-chief of the pro-government newspaper Al-Ahram, who attended the meeting, said Suleiman did not only mean a military coup but a takeover by another powerful state apparatus or Islamist groups. Mubarak has said he will step down at the end of his term in September, but the US is raising the pressure for speedy reform. The US vice-president, Joe Biden, spoke by telephone to Suleiman on Tuesday, saying the US wanted Egypt immediately to rescind emergency laws that gave broad powers to security forces, a key demand of the protesters. While media attention has focused on developments in Cairo, protests have also occurred throughout the country. Cities across the Nile delta north of Cairo, those far to the south and others to the east have also had streets filled with demonstrators demanding Mubarak go. “I want Mubarak to leave, I want all this system to leave, this system has all kinds of corruption,” Mohamed Sabaie, a jobless 25-year-old in the Nile delta city of Tanta told Reuters. Farmers have also voiced support for the demonstrators. “The revolution is good … It will give us stability but the protest should stop and the president should be allowed to stay until the end of his term,” said Fawzi Abdel Wahab, a farmer working a field near Tanta. “If the president doesn’t do as he promised, Tahrir Square is still there and the youth will not die, they can go back.” About 300 demonstrators are estimated to have died in the unrest, but a comprehensive count is a long way off as some bereaved families hesitate to come forward. Human Rights Watch continues to warn that hospitals have been ordered to play down the numbers of casualties. It has condemned the arrest of an estimated 119 people in the crackdown on the protest and says it has evidence that five of those people were tortured . An al-Qaida in Iraq front group, meanwhile, has urged Egyptians to join holy war and establish an Islamic state – the latest in a series of statements by Islamic militants supporting the protesters. The Islamic State of Iraq warned Egyptians against being deceived by “the malicious secularism, the infidel democracy and the rotten pagan nationalism,” according to a statement posted on two militant websites. Egypt Protest Hosni Mubarak Middle East Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The folks at Politco Click put together this amusing video (below the break) as a fun farewell to the outgoing White House press secretary.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media While rehashing Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama , Joe Scarborough and his buddy Mark Halperin decided go into full-blown PUMA mode with the “Obama was never vetted during the primaries and everyone was picking on poor Hillary” game on Morning Joe this Monday. Scarborough seems to have forgotten about those twenty some debates that they had during the Democratic primary race. They also both apparently forgot that the interview with O’Reilly before the Super Bowl this weekend was not the first one Obama had given him. He previously sat down for an even more hostile interview with Bill-O in September of 2008 when he was candidate Obama. HALPERIN: One of the things the president said in that interview was by the time you get to be president you’ve had tough coverage and he’s used to it. Well the fact is unlike most people who get elected president, he didn’t have tough coverage and so this is on the job training for him and he’s handling it pretty well. SCARCBOROUGH: Are you saying Obama didn’t get tough coverage? HALPERIN: Not as a Senator or a presidential candidate. SCARCBOROUGH: Oh, well, I mean you, if you call, I mean reporters coming up to him and feeding him grapes before asking him some questions, like A-Rod… BREZEZINSKI: You know that is revisionist thinking. SCARBOROUGH: That’s not revisionist thinking! He was given a free pass! BREZEZINSKI: There was a lot of really great coverage. SCARBOROUGH: Ah, come on. BREZEZINSKI: There were all sorts of really tough moments where he had to actually do a speech on his race. SCARBOROUGH: Mika there were no tough moments for him. BREZEZINSKI: Okay? SCARBOROUGH: So? BREZEZINSKI: And there were people who laughed at the concept of him being president, like pfft, what a joke. SCARBOROUGH: Mika, he was given biggest free ride in the history of American politics. He was. Hillary Clinton was savaged. She was treated so unfairly by almost all quarters and Obama could do no wrong. BREZEZINSKI: Right. SCARBOROUGH: That is just reality. They walked into that White House thinking that they were going to be treated like the savior, like the second coming, had to happen. And that’s why it’s taken them two years to realize what actually we’ve been saying all along, they’re human and they’re going to have to play by the rules of Washington. And if they don’t, they’re going to lose. And they finally figured that out two years later. Come on. Scarborough goes on to cite articles about Cindy McCain’s drug addiction or McCain’s rumored affair with a lobbyist as examples of how John McCain supposedly received unfair treatment during the presidential race as well. Conveniently Scarborough forgot to mention the ridiculous stories like this one about Obama that had absolutely no basis in fact that were out there during the campaign — Ex-Con Who Claimed He “Took Drugs And Had Homo Sex With Obama” Running For Office . Former Gov. Ed Rendell then mentions the big elephant in the room in regard to Obama — the media’s coverage of Rev. Wright. Scarborough pretends that Obama never addressed that either and Brezezinski reminds him that he did address it when he gave his speech on race back in March of 2008 . As Brezezinski alluded to, we all know Hannity went after Obama with night after night for his ties to Rev. Wright as our friends at Media Matters have documented . No negative coverage huh Joe? Feeding him grapes… spare me your hyperbole. I thought this game already died a slow death in the media when the primaries ended and they finally quit repeating John McCain and Sarah Palin’s talking points for them, but apparently not. Scarborough and Halperin just can’t seem to quit repeating them.
Continue reading …The main headlines on Al Jazeera English, featuring the latest news and reports from around the world.
Continue reading …If liberals thought the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth was a little sickening, they could always find comfort in the loopy leftist loathing of the Daily Kos. On Sunday, “Slangist” took the fruitcake with lines like this: “First elected Governor on a muted inclination to shoot student demonstrators, Reagan spent his political life as an apostle of reaction, repression and recklessness.” Reagan's contempt for the U.S. government was the “direct ancestor of Timothy McVeigh's, though Reagan's damage hit all American urban areas, not just Oklahoma City.” He was McVeigh, only more murderous. This Kosmonaut also boldly asserted that Reagan was a worse liar than Bill Clinton: His genial Irish confidence-man's twinkle served him well in movies, as a pitchman, and finally as a deliverer of political homilies almost every one of which was false in some major particular. The unrepentant public liar that Republicans accused Bill Clinton of being, Reagan had already been. His most famous comments were astonishing in their irrelevance. “I paid for this microphone” helped him get nominated in 1980, even though the dispute was over the agreed rules, not the payments. “Tear down this wall” was as hubristic as if Gorbachev had told Reagan to stop imprisoning so many black people…. Reagan craved credit for winning the Cold War though his major achievement was that he was standing around when the peoples of Eastern Europe, for reasons of their own, chose economic and political chang e. His overexpenditure on space warfare gadgetry fleeced a generation of American schoolchildren of adequate disbursements. And he did it with a such a grin. Equally he sought plaudits for preventing where possible, or rolling back where available, significant social, political or economic progress in America. The real thrust of his punitive and parsimonious “smaller government” mantra was to spend less on ordinary people and more on corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks or military spending. His contempt for the American government is the direct ancestor of Timothy McVeigh's, though Reagan's damage hit all American urban areas, not just Oklahoma City . But he always looked so friendly. [Emphasis mine.] The “Morning in America” mendacity foisted upon voters by his handlers was a call to true Disneyfication of the American melting pot: a white-dominated small-town where our little brown and black brothers knew their places and watched the jobs go to others, meanwhile keeping women of all colors either out of the workplace, or making sure they remained underpaid if employed at all. On Monday, Mark Sumner followed up : “the election of Ronald Reagan is the central and enduring tragedy of our age. By that I don't mean “it's the worst thing that has happened.”… I mean that the rise of Ronald Reagan was the tipping point, the axis around which history turned away from one view of the world towards another. And it was a devastatingly wrong turn.” That many people still buy into Reagan's ideas on economics is understandable, because the press then and now fails to point out the most important fact about Reagan’s contentions. They made it up . [Emphasis his.] The Cadillac driving welfare queen, the ever-enriching Laffer Curve, the insistence that regulation was what troubled our markets and banks – they are phantasms. Deliberate mendacity, with no sounder theoretical basis than “that's what I want you to believe.” The Great Snake Oil Salesman foisted on America a set of remedies that had all the scientific basis of the four humors and even less curative power than a good old fashioned bleeding…. Of course, human rights were never a concern of the conservative agenda, and Reagan made his disdain for the notion abundantly clear.
Continue reading …Millions of people in northern Kenya are facing hunger and an uncertain future, as a drought continues to destroy their crops and livestock. And forecasters expect the dry spell to last at least two more months. Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Adow reports.
Continue reading …In discovering their power to determine their future, north Africa’s protesters have already opened a new age in world history In one of his last published essays, written in 1798, the philosopher Immanuel Kant reflected on the impact of the continuing revolution in France. Kant himself was no Jacobin, and opposed extra-legal change as a matter of principle. He conceded that the future course of the revolution’s pursuit of liberty and equality “may be so filled with misery and atrocities that no right-thinking person would ever decide to make the same experiment again, at such a price”. Regardless of its immediate political consequences, however, Kant could at least see that the universal “sympathy bordering on enthusiasm” solicited by the spectacle of the revolution was itself a telling indication of its eventual significance. Whatever might happen next, the event was already “too intimately interwoven with the interests of humanity and too widespread in its influence upon all parts of the world for nations not to be reminded of it when favourable circumstances present themselves, and to rise up and make renewed attempts of the same kind”. A similar interweaving has characterised sympathetic observation of today’s north African revolutions from the moment they began. Of course, it is too early to say what the immediate outcome of Egypt’s ongoing mobilisation will be. Anti-government protestors have so far retained the initiative and determined the course and pace of political change. At this point, after a couple of exhausting weeks, Egypt’s rulers (both at home and abroad) clearly hope that belated recourse to a familiar mix of divide-and-rule manoeuvrings – minor concessions, secret negotiations, delayed investigations, selective intimidation – may yet manage to distract some of the participants in a mobilisation thus far remarkable for its discipline, unity and resolve. Some observers, who are perhaps themselves exhausted, have begun to wonder whether the spectacle of Egypt’s protests might now start to fade away. Judging from the response in and around Tahrir Square , this seems very unlikely. In a sense, though, what happens in the immediate future may prove less important than what has already happened in the immediate past. Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman already belong to a decidedly ancien régime . The fate of Egypt’s revolution is already independent of the next twist in negotiations with the old dictatorship, or the next fumbled response from its American backers. For whatever happens next, Egypt’s mobilisation will remain a revolution of world-historical significance because its actors have repeatedly demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to defy the bounds of political possibility, and to do this on the basis of their own enthusiasm and commitment. They have arranged mass protests in the absence of any formal organisation, and have sustained them in the face of murderous intimidation. In a single, decisive afternoon they overcame Mubarak’s riot police and have since held their ground against his informers and thugs. They have resisted all attempts to misrepresent or criminalise their mobilisation. They have expanded their ranks to include millions of people from almost every sector of society. They have invented unprecedented forms of mass association and assembly, in which they can debate far-reaching questions about popular sovereignty, class polarisation and social justice. Every step of the way, the basic fact of the uprising has become more obvious and more explicit: with each new confrontation, the protestors have realised, and demonstrated, that they are more powerful than their oppressors. When they are prepared to act in sufficient numbers with sufficient determination, the people have proved that there’s no stopping them. Again and again, elated protestors have marvelled at the sudden discovery of their own power. “We look like people who’ve woken up from a spell, a nightmare,” observed writer Ahdaf Soueif , and “we revel in the inclusiveness” of the struggle. Protestor after protestor has insisted on a transformative liberation from fear. “People have changed,” teacher Ahmad Mahmoud told a Guardian reporter : “They were scared. They are no longer scared … When we stopped being afraid we knew we would win. We will not again allow ourselves to be scared of a government. This is the revolution in our country, the revolution in our minds. Mubarak can stay for days or weeks but he cannot change that.” Protestor Karim Medhat Ennarah agreed : “We have already created a liberated republic within the heart of Egypt” with “our own security services” and “our own food supply chains. People are exhausted but exhilarated.” Such liberation and exhilaration seemed unimaginable just a few weeks ago, in ancien régime Egypt. It is now the people, not the régime, who will decide on the limits separating the possible from the impossible. This is the main reason why, regardless of what happens in the short term, the long-term consequences of 25 January 2011 may well counter and exceed those of 11 September 2001. Even now, George W Bush and Tony Blair continue to invoke 9/11 as the inauguration of a “new era”, as their occasion for “thinking the unthinkable” on a wide range of fronts. In reality, of course, 9/11 was invoked only to justify the implementation of long-standing imperial plans; it served only to consolidate the old balance of power and to intensify an old set of neoliberal trends. Egypt’s revolution raises the prospect of a break with these trends. No one can predict the immediate sequence of events, but it is now possible to anticipate an Egypt that chooses to confront, rather than enhance social inequalities, one that prioritises the interests of the many over the privileges of the few. It’s possible to envisage an Egypt that seeks to free itself of foreign influence, and thus an Egypt more willing to recognise the difference between a “peace process” and a “surrender process” in the Middle East. It’s possible to imagine a scenario in which Egypt’s neighbours might follow suit. It’s possible to imagine, in short, how the north African revolutions of 2011 might change the world as a whole. A future possibility is just that, a possibility. But in Egypt, the present fact remains: for the first time in decades, the decision to determine and then realise such possibilities depends first and foremost on the people themselves. Egypt Tunisia Yemen Protest Middle East Peter Hallward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Thousands of demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square gave a hero’s welcome to a Google executive and activist who has become a symbol of the country’s anti-government movement
Continue reading …