and that there wasn t any kind of cacophony out of the government or the white house. the policy was clear from the beginning so everyone was in synch. i think in addition to what ambassador walker said we are supportive but at the same time we are not naive. we weren t born yesterday. we know these things take time. it s a long-term process and that while democratic government may the long-term goal we think democracy and representative government is probably the best way to assure long-term stability of a country and a region. we realize it s going to take time and happen in different ways. stability in the meantime in the middle. there is always that risk. let me ask you about a couple of things. there is a theory that this was a great victory for al qaeda.
to dissolve parliament, suspend the constitution, be the representative of egypt domestically and internationally and oversee the process of trying to set up the next presidential and parliamentary elections. when it comes to dissolving the parliament, i think the military will have the support of much of the protest movement because the parliament has little credibility here after the troubled and widely perceived as rigged elections last november and december. candy? i may have put the question inartfully. what i m trying to get as is do you think the moves by the military will be satisfactory to protesters and they will, in fact, stay out of the square, that this is what they wanted, this puts them on the road to where they want to go. are these good things?
exactly what the road map to democracy is. what elbaradei told me was unless by friday they have a fairly specific road map for democracy and a road map for transitional government, a comanagement of the process, the protests will begin again on friday. that seems like a little problematic. does he think that actually given this is a government that s been entrenched for three decades that it is something they can actually do by friday? i think what he s looking for are signs that the government realizes this is a transitional period. in other words, some kind of government of national unity or as he puts it, comanagement of a process so it s not entirely up to the military. then he wanted a series of more specific things, some of which the military have just agreed to. as we have been having this conversation there is a fifth military communique out in which the military does say that they
the egyptian military have reaffirmed their commitment to their international the country s international agreements. commitment to the arab-israeli peace process. i think that s good. let me ask you about u.s.-egyptian intelligence information-sharing. one theory, well, you know, because this will be a new government that might not be able to or actually be as friendly to the u.s. as mubarak was, we are losing a key intelligence partner here who helped with al qaeda, with iran, in gaza. or because it s a democracy and we are going to share values, it will be of greater help. well, i mean, let me put it this way. the most effective and best intelligence cooperation we have around the world is with the most democratic countries. there is a group called the five i s which consists of the united states, australia, united kingdom, canada and new zealand.
peaceful transition. yes, i worked with him through the years as many other high ranking american officials have. he was never responsive to our suggestions that he open up the political system a bit more in egypt. that he give more freedom and human rights to his people. i have to tell you this. having said that he was a damn good ally for the united states for 30 years. he sent his troops to fight with us in the persian gulf alongside american forces. he was a steadfast ally on the war on terror. he was very good in supporting the arab israeli peace process. you might have seen broad hood said if mubarak there if he goes there will be a war between egypt and israel. and anybody who has a huge stake is our ally israel.