The line of succession in Egypt goes to the Speaker of the

[malaise]

Parliament not some just appointed VP - it is against the constitution. The US is making a big mistake according to an Hillary Mann- Leverett on ComcastGEM$NBC.

Same shit different day.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Not just some

US sponsored torturer.

[malaise]

4. Yes indeed

Mr Rendition himself.
Obama better stop - think - and bury the neo-cons before he destroys himself.

[tekisui]

2. Goddamnit. I can't believe how this is turning out.

[Matariki]

3. Is it really turning out a particular way?

Seems the US thinks it can write the scenario - as if the folks on the street have no say what so ever.

[tekisui]

5. We'll see. I hope I overestimate our influence.

[EFerrari]

6. Is that right? I thought the Speaker was charged with announcing

the resignation and with installing the VP.

[RB TexLa]

7. So what, the US constitution says only officers of the US can be in the line of succession and that

members of congress can not be officers of the US. Yet everyone still thinks the speaker of the house is somehow legally in line.

[earthside]

8. It's a revolution ...

... they can do what they want.

But, I have to agree with others, today's developments so far have the unpleasant odor of the Obama administration seeking "bipartisanship" on Egypt, in other words Mubarak can stay till September after all.

As if it is really any of our business.

Will we never learn?

[grasswire]

9. Christiane Amanpour explained it last night.

The constitutional provisions are extremely convoluted. Mubarek stepping down will not give the people what they want, apparently, because of laws of succession.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Its a technicality

Under their Article 139 Mubarak can delegate all power to his VP without resigning. As such the line of succession wouldn't be material at that point.

[snot]

11. maybe that's why Wisner decided we need to keep Mubarek in power.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x354735