![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purejuiceStill not getting any reliable source info on what Hosni was supposed to say Thursday night, and at whose behest, why he didn't say it, what it was he did say, and what changed to get his ass out the next day.
This piece promises a lot and delivers nothing except the impression that Leon Panetta was listening to the radio like all the rest of us. With considerably fewer listening skills. You read it here first that Tantawi was the man to watch. Now he is the pharoah. Furthermore, Amr Moussa, it is reported, has quit his plum job as head of the Arab League in apparent preparation to run for president. You read that here first too.
The Guardian -- unlike the American papers, which are amazingly full of gasbaggery -- has this straightforward scenario:
The army appears to have expected more from him, possibly including his complete resignation or the transfer of powers to the military, not Suleiman. Clearly alarmed at the popular reaction, it sought to reassure the protesters with a declaration that the promise of free elections would be fulfilled. But that too failed to ease the demonstrations, as many in the opposition saw the statement as backing the status quo, although it could also be read as offering an assurance to Egyptians that the military was prepared to ensure Mubarak stood by his commitments.
As the protests built up during the day, a determined crowd marched on the state television building, a target of particular ire because of its stream of propaganda and false accusations against the protesters.
The station all but went off air as it was obliged to cancel live programmes because it could not get guests into the building. Several hours later the station was conducting interviews again – with protesters and victims of the regime.
The protesters fanned out to other parts of the city and began a march on Mubarak's presidential palace. Meanwhile, the military's supreme council held an emergency session to decide how to clearly confront the crisis, and concluded that Mubarak had to go once and for all.
By lunchtime he was on a plane with his family to Sharm el-Sheikh, where he also has a palace which he periodically lends to Tony Blair.
A few hours later came the announcement that had Egypt celebrating in to the night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/11/hosni-mubarak-resigns-egypt-cairo
It seems to me the Guardian is implying that the peoples' march on the presidential palace is what galvanized the army to tell Mubarak to scram. I think this is romance, or possibly disinformation. Indeed, the lack of a smoking gun, the miasma of gasbaggery which makes today's NYT reek, suggests either real stupidity, like the CIA still doesn't speak Arabic (gobsmackin' indictment of former Pak strongman Musharraf for Bhutto's assassination, good work, American front and back channels!), or diabolical disinformation (Mossad, yeah!).
I suspect he was doing something to get his money, or his sons' jobs, into place. I wonder who asked the Swiss to freeze his assets?
This piece promises a lot and delivers nothing except the impression that Leon Panetta was listening to the radio like all the rest of us. With considerably fewer listening skills. You read it here first that Tantawi was the man to watch. Now he is the pharoah. Furthermore, Amr Moussa, it is reported, has quit his plum job as head of the Arab League in apparent preparation to run for president. You read that here first too.
The Guardian -- unlike the American papers, which are amazingly full of gasbaggery -- has this straightforward scenario:
The army appears to have expected more from him, possibly including his complete resignation or the transfer of powers to the military, not Suleiman. Clearly alarmed at the popular reaction, it sought to reassure the protesters with a declaration that the promise of free elections would be fulfilled. But that too failed to ease the demonstrations, as many in the opposition saw the statement as backing the status quo, although it could also be read as offering an assurance to Egyptians that the military was prepared to ensure Mubarak stood by his commitments.
As the protests built up during the day, a determined crowd marched on the state television building, a target of particular ire because of its stream of propaganda and false accusations against the protesters.
The station all but went off air as it was obliged to cancel live programmes because it could not get guests into the building. Several hours later the station was conducting interviews again – with protesters and victims of the regime.
The protesters fanned out to other parts of the city and began a march on Mubarak's presidential palace. Meanwhile, the military's supreme council held an emergency session to decide how to clearly confront the crisis, and concluded that Mubarak had to go once and for all.
By lunchtime he was on a plane with his family to Sharm el-Sheikh, where he also has a palace which he periodically lends to Tony Blair.
A few hours later came the announcement that had Egypt celebrating in to the night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/11/hosni-mubarak-resigns-egypt-cairo
It seems to me the Guardian is implying that the peoples' march on the presidential palace is what galvanized the army to tell Mubarak to scram. I think this is romance, or possibly disinformation. Indeed, the lack of a smoking gun, the miasma of gasbaggery which makes today's NYT reek, suggests either real stupidity, like the CIA still doesn't speak Arabic (gobsmackin' indictment of former Pak strongman Musharraf for Bhutto's assassination, good work, American front and back channels!), or diabolical disinformation (Mossad, yeah!).
I suspect he was doing something to get his money, or his sons' jobs, into place. I wonder who asked the Swiss to freeze his assets?
