Washington was taken by surprise by the Egyptian revolution because policy experts focused too much on Mubarak and his government, and too little on the 'voice of the people.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If Reagan had intelligence information that showed that the upheaval in Egypt is actually Democratic in spirit, then he would have, I believe, turned his back on Mubarak, even though there's a long friendship between the United States and Egypt.
The Egyptian military plays positive and negative roles in Egypt, but the most significant single thing it did under Mubarak was to guarantee an Islamist victory once he left the scene.
I think the Egyptian people need to restore confidence that Americans, the U.S., means what they say when they talk about democracy, rule of law.
Washington worked very hard to create his legacy. Even before the War of Independence was over, he was assembling his papers and making sure they were going to be in a state of preservation that would represent as best he could the official side of what occurred during the Revolution.
Mubarak came to power as a hero who fought bravely in Egypt's wars and headed the nation's air force.
Washington's entire honesty of mind and his fearless look into the face of all facts are qualities which can never go out of fashion and which we should all do well to imitate.
The irony is that Washington was, in reality, very much like Benedict Arnold. The big difference was that Washington was ultimately able to control his emotions, something Arnold never learned to do.
Washington's character was rock solid. He came to stand for the new nation and its republican virtues, which was why he became our first President by unanimous choice.
We think of Washington as the defensive-minded pragmatist who won the Revolution by avoiding unnecessary risks on the battlefield. But that was not how he started out.
The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.
No opposing quotes found.