I just watched most of Wolf Blitzer’s interview with the Egyptian ambassador, clarifying what Mubarak said in his speech. Essentially, the interview consisted of Blitzer constantly asking for clarification of Mubarak’s handing down all authority to his vice-president. He spent at least 15 minutes asking this question over and over and over and over and over, with the ambassador patiently giving the same unambiguous answer each time . . . an answer that I understood the first time he gave it. Actually, I don’t know how long the interview lasted, because I finally had to shut it off, hoarse from screaming at the tv.
The interview may be somewhere on this link, unless it’s still going on.
Does Blitzer get paid by the minute, or is he just stupid? This may explain his record-breaking score at Celebrity Jeopardy! last year . . . minus $6500.
Well, Rachel Maddow is dancing a very similar dance trying to get something plain and direct out of a professional diplomat. And she isn’t having that easy a time of it, and she’s a sharp cookie.
No, she is not a moron. But she also has a habit of making a point, then rephrasing that point in a dozen different ways. I’d [del]love[/del] hate to see a debate between Blitzer and Maddow.
And Brian Williams had the ambassador on the phone live during the Nightly News, asking for the same clarification.
The answer I heard was “Mubarak’s still the president, but he’s turned over all his powers to the vice-president, except for the one’s he didn’t, because he’s still the president.”
Was the ambassador’s reply to Blitzer more unambiguous than that?
I don’t think the ambassador was ambiguous at all. Mubarak would be the “de jure” leader and the VP would be the “de facto” leader. Blitzer kept asking for the same “clarification” over and over again.
Well, that’s the kind of thing that seems to mean something, but doesn’t hold up under inspection. If all the real power is already transferred, what difference does it make if he stays or not? Since his leaving would definitely calm things down, then there must be some important reason for him to stay. Like what, if he has no power to affect things? He’s going to “monitor” the situation? And make comments? Suggest color schemes?
If he stqys, its only because he has the raw power to do so, whether is de jure, de facto, or whatever, its power, or it ain’t.
I think we’re in agreement here!