jenna: aaron, let me jump in. i have breaking news from the pentagon crossing the wires, a pentagon spokesman saying at this time that any post-qaddafi mission does not include boots on the ground. that s one of the headlines coming across at this time, that also, our surveillance missions over libya will continue over the coming days, and finally, that they also do not believe that qaddafi has left libya. let s go back to one of the points you mentioned in passing about weapons. there s been a lot of variety of different reports of what qaddafi does or does not have, and what happens to those weapon, whatever they are, once this government falls. again, as far as strat good and our own national security, what is the best move? if we don t have boots on the ground there to find out what s there? and also to keep our country secure? it s true we may not have boots on the ground, but we have other kinds of shoes on the ground and have had them there for the last five months. jenna: wha
to saudi arabia, to jordan, to others who have seen the united states treat mubarak like one of their closest allies in the world? and suddenly when things turn badly, they throw him under a bus and i m not saying that it s not the moral and right thing to do. but let s be realistic about it. after this government falls, we re going to need friends in saudi arabia we can count on. we re going to need friends in jordan we can count on. we ll need friends across the world that we can count on that don t have jeffersonian democracies. that s right. it s quite possible that we re going to have the mubarak government till the fall and we ll have to work with them. it s quite possible we ll have a fairly unattractive successor government. we ll have to work with them. we have to be careful. there s no mileage for to us take a big public role here.
yourself with the second iran collin powell said it best about iraq. he said if you break it, you own it. clearly president obama whether it s because of his words about rad radical islam, failure to condemn it. failure to name terrorism. his appeasement and very possibly outright efforts to encourage people to destabilize the mubarak regime broke egypt and he now owns it. if that government falls and if it is replaced by a muslim brotherhood organization which is closely related to hamas. the question closely just like 1952, the question was who lost china? now it s going to be who lost egypt? laura: i think the question is what s next? people want reform and want him out. the question is what fills that vacuum? are we sufficiently, dick,
state, if you will. that would now not only would it create military implications for us, but it would create problems for the israelis as well. megyn: speak to what this means for israel if this government falls and a government backed in large part by the muslim brotherhood comes in. any time you have seen a palestinian-israeli conflict you see egypt mediate, trying to work it out. egypt was the first nation to recognize israel. if the ndp were to fall and eight were taken over by an islamic jihadist state, what you would wind up seeing is probably zero support for the israelies. the gaza strip is protected by and monitored by egypt.
there are more and more reports the muslim brotherhood is behind this or at least fueling it in large measure. my last guest says what do you expect when you have essentially a dictator who doesn t allow democratic reforms or voices to be heard for 30 years. on the other hand, what is the alternative we are look at if egypt s government falls? the muslim brotherhood are a sunni-based group. hamas is an offshoot. their goal or vision about a nation state would be some long along the iranian-taliban-islamic state. we cannot ignore the idea that egypt has been the largest opposition to iranian control over the middle east. the iranians have had that as their goal for many years. egypt has been a secular