The neocons at National Review Online have been bashing Obama for siding with Mubarak against the protesters, and now Israel is bashing Obama for siding with the protesters against Mubarak. (NRO also has been bashing Obama for not taking sides at all; but one good bash is as good as another.)
However, the consensus on the Right seems to be forming around the Pam Geller view that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the protests and will end up in control of Egypt. Fox News originally muted its coverage of the uprising, but more recently it has swung into full Islamophobe mode.
This has left NRO out on a limb, since the neocons there originally viewed the uprising as the natural and glorious consequence of George W. Bush’s resolute leadership and Condi Rice’s calls for freedom. So now Rich Lowry is calling the uprising “ambiguous.” It may not turn out well, Lowry admits. But you can tell his heart is still with the uprising. Toward the end, he even calls the uprising an “Arab spring.”
But for once, Lowry may be in the ball park of actuality, or at least in the parking lot. It’s a very ambiguous situation. It’s anyone’s guess how this will shake out.
Update to one of yesterday’s posts: Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty have now spoken out on Egypt, and have firmly taken sides against the Obama Administration. They faulted the Obama Administration for not clearly standing either with Mubarak or the uprising.
However, it’s not clear where Newt stands, except that he doesn’t like the Muslim Brotherhood. Bold stand, that. Pawlenty was a little more firm, saying that Mubarak should step down.