Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Egypt's Ambassador on Protests; Day 15 of Egypt's Revolution

Aired February 08, 2011 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Eliot Spitzer.

Tonight we start as we have for two weeks now in a live picture of Tahrir Square where it's 3:00 in the morning. It's foggy tonight so you can't quite see that the square is still crowded after a day in which we saw the biggest crowds yet. We'll have a live report on it just a few minutes.

But first, we start with the tale of two men. Wael Ghonim and Omar Suleiman. They could not be more different. Yet the future of Egypt may be determined by the actions of these two men in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

Wael Ghonim is the 30-year-old Google executive who helped launched the democracy movement. Today on a day when many were speculating that the revolution might be losing steam, Ghonim inspired the largest crowds yet to gather in Tahrir Square.

Once again thousands were calling for Mubarak to leave. But the regime, under the regime of Vice President Omar Suleiman is not going anywhere.

Suleiman, who's been called Mubarak's Mubarak has his foot on the brake of the Egypt's democracy movement. The Google executive Ghonim, a father of two, was held captive by Egyptian security forces for 12 days, blindfolded the entire time.

Today, his speech in Tahrir Square was greeted with thunderous applause. His message was clear, and I quote, "We will not abandon our demand, and that is the departure of the regime."

PARKER: The regime responded quickly. Vice President Omar Suleiman promised the demonstrators will not be prosecuted, but can he be trusted? Until last month, Suleiman stayed largely in the shadows as the director of Egypt's intelligence service. He was once called one of the world's most powerful spy chiefs.

Suleiman developed close relationships with his counterparts in the United States when he oversaw the program of extraordinary rendition, the sending of American prisoners to Egypt for interrogation outside the scope of American rules.

SPITZER: The question tonight, can a previously unknown Google executive with perhaps millions of protesters standing by him provide the leadership to oust a deeply entrenched military dictatorship.

Now for the first time here tonight a chance to get some real answers. When will the Egyptian government take responsibility for some of its outrageous actions? Tonight, finally, I talk to someone who can address that question.

Joining me tonight from Washington, Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the United States.

Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us.

SAMEH SHOUKRY, EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Thank you for having me.

SPITZER: Look, I've just got to begin with a question that I know tens of millions of Americans just need an answer to. How can it be that after everything we've gone through for weeks of protests, the Egyptian government could hold, arrest, detain, hooded for 12 days the Google executive, Wael Ghonim? How could that possibly happen?

SHOUKRY: Mister Ghonim was released yesterday. And I think he indicated that during his detention he was subjected to interrogation which was conducted in a respectful way towards him. But in any case, the situation currently is that there has been a decision, a definitive one, that all prisoners of conscious should be immediately released, and there are now concerted efforts to release anyone that might be still under detention.

SPITZER: Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, I understand the decision was made after an international outcry. After millions of people showed up, the decision was made to release him. But whose decision was it to arrest him, keep him hooded, to interrogate him? A Google executive.

On what basis was he arrested and then interrogated for 12 days. How can you justify that behavior and say to the world that you're intending to reform this government?

SHOUKRY: I can only once again reiterate that it is currently the decision categorically to release all prisoners of conscious. This is an outcome of the political dialogue that has been under way. It is a national consensus that has been developed and it is something that the government has indicated its willingness and determination to do so.

SPITZER: Mr. Ambassador, again, with all due respect, I agree. Everybody wants to look forward, but in order to look forward, you need to know who you're dealing with and whether you can trust the people you're dealing with.

Who would have authorized that arrest and that interrogation? And would that have been a decision coming out of the military? Coming from Vice President Suleiman's office? Where was this decision made? Who will be held accountable for it and who will stand up and say, I'm the responsible party? SHOUKRY: Well, this is one of the issues that a third council has been established to primarily look into the related to the tragic and deplorable events of Wednesday when the violence broke out during the demonstration. And of course, it will look into other areas of lack of security of the fluid situation, security situation, conditions that occurred.

The manner in which the security services undertook the responsibility and any shortcomings in that regard. This is an important issue than many in Egypt, if not all Egyptians, are calling for a transparent and credible investigation. One of the issues that has been given a great deal of attention during the political dialogue and one that will be undertaken.

It's an important factor for the also future to determine who was responsible for any wrongdoings. And I'm sure that that committee in its impartiality will come to the bottom of many of these questions.

SPITZER: Again, Mr. Ambassador, I understand a committee has been set up to look at this that will report at some point down in the future. But the reason you still have millions of people in the street demanding Mubarak's resignation is that nobody in the government, from Vice President Suleiman, who's been in charge with an iron fist for 30 years -- nobody has stood up and said I authorized this.

You had journalists from every major organization being harassed, arrested, taken up -- and picked up off the streets last week at the direction of the government. Who is going to say, we are responsible for that?

SHOUKRY: Again, it is deplorable that journalists had come under certain harassments. I think you have to take into consideration the very fluid, very dangerous situation that existed. The vast demonstrations, the numbers of people, the apprehension, the language barriers.

That some journalists did not have accreditation, and also the fact that there were over 1,000 journalists in Egypt, and the vast majority of them did operate without any form of harassment or difficulty.

SPITZER: Mr. Ambassador, and I say this with all due respect, your answers simply defy credibility. Every major news organization had journalists picked up, harassed, bullied. This was an orchestrated effort by the government of Egypt. Human rights activists were being arrested. Held incommunicado. This was not isolated.

The fear and crisis is being created by the government, not by the peaceful protesters. When is it going to stop?

SHOUKRY: Well, it's very easy to make very broad allegations without substantiation and again I believe that the vast number of journalists did operate in an atmosphere where they were able to conduct their operation. I have ascertained today that there are no longer anyone who is suffering from any forms of mishandling or subjected to any difficulties, and again, it is -- I think we have to put things into perspective. And it's important not to generalize.

SPITZER: Mr. Ambassador, I've been a prosecutor, I'm meticulous about facts. CNN journalists were surrounded, intimidated, beaten up.

SHOUKRY: I think the issue -- the issue goes beyond the CNN journalists in particular. If that is the only issue that concern you --

SPITZER: Mr. Ambassador, it was ABC --

SHOUKRY: And I was a -- and I am an attorney as well. So we share the same profession.

SPITZER: Well, in that case, I'd like to deal with facts. ABC, CBS, "The New York Times," CNN, human rights organizations. This was orchestrated by the military, by the police, the very people who now say -- bizarrely to me -- Egypt is not ready for democracy.

Is it that Egypt is not ready for democracy or the military is not willing to give up its power, sir? Which is it?

SHOUKRY: Well, I think the amount of reform and the inclination to do everything possible within a limited period of time, you have to recognize that this has not gone beyond a week, but in the span of that week, we've seen the president indicating his -- he would not run for office, that his son would not run for office.

His son and the major -- the leadership of the National Democratic Party had resigned. The vice president has led a very successful process of political dialogue which incorporated all segments of the political spectrum, including the Muslim Brotherhood. They were able to agree on a national consensus of the way forward.

SPITZER: Again, Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, I think you are wrong in certain of your critical assertions. There has not been agreement about the road forward. There's been an outright rejection by virtually all of the protesters and the voices in Tahrir Square, saying that they reject this one-sided agreement.

Vice President Suleiman who has ruled -- and this is not a matter of one week. This is a matter of 30 years of a military dictatorship. He is still refused to lift martial law. Why? Why can you not lift martial law? What is the government of Egypt afraid of?

SHOUKRY: Again, the consensus that came out of the political dialogue that was attended by representatives, not of all the youth movement in the square, but some of them that was attended by the secular parties, by the Muslim Brotherhood, by independents, by credible Egyptians, all did agree to lifting of the emergency law when conditions were ripe. When it is possible in terms of the security dangers that exist.

I think this is quite apparent and it was documented. And to say otherwise would be to -- somewhat misleading.

SPITZER: Again, Mr. Ambassador, there is no question over 300 people have been killed, thousands, untold thousands have been injured. Those casualties have come as a result of the security forces and those who have been organized by the security forces, not by the peaceful protesters who are calling for President Mubarak's resignation.

So are you not creating your own circumstances to justify, keeping martial law in place as you have for 30 years? This is -- nobody on the protesters on the peaceful side of those calling for President Mubarak's resignation has caused death or injury.

SHOUKRY: The protesters -- the protesters have been accorded the protection of the military. They've had now four or five major demonstrations. The mistakes that our occurred on Wednesday where violence did erupt between demonstrators on both sides of the issue have been rectified.

And I believe that if you are monitoring the situation, you'll find that today's protests like yesterday and the days before went ahead without any violence, without any form of hindrance.

SPITZER: Do you acknowledge that the Egyptian government has been trying to blame foreigners and everybody from the state of Israel to Americans to all sorts of outsiders for these protests? I mean, this is accepted by everybody. You can't possibly deny that.

SHOUKRY: It's not a matter of denial. It's a matter that there have been certain indications there might have been foreign intervention in certain segments. And again, these are issues that will certainly be investigated, and if there's substantiated evidence, it will be public.

And I think that needs to be the way that we proceed -- we proceed within the context of the law and we apply ourselves in that regard. There are always rumors in terms of conditions of grave tension and this sort of demonstrations, which are unprecedented.

SPITZER: Can you --

SHOUKRY: These are demonstrations of very large number of people that have reached in the hundreds of thousands, but there is also normalcy that is being regained in Cairo. Cairo is a city of 20 million. So now we are trying to regain stability and trying to regain the economic livelihoods of many of the people who have been affected while setting out on this very ambitious reform program.

SPITZER: Can you give me any evidence of foreign interference or foreigners who have stimulated these protests?

SHOUKRY: I have no evidence available to provide you.

SPITZER: And so you have to agree then that the Egyptian government's effort to blame foreigners for this is just one in a piece of their effort to mislead the Egyptian public? SHOUKRY: Well, I think if you have any evidence, Mr. Spitzer, to that account, I'd be very happy to see it as well.

SPITZER: All right. Well, look, Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate your coming on and -- sharing your time even though the questions may have been, from your perspective, somewhat tough. And thank you, sir, and we look forward to chatting with you in the future.

SHOUKRY: Thank you very much.

PARKER: Coming up, a live report from Cairo where even now at almost 3:15 in the morning the square is crowded and several thousands demonstrators are crowded in front of the parliament. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Today Tahrir Square saw the larger turnout of pro- democracy demonstrators yet.

Joining us now from Cairo for more on the massive turnout is CNN international correspondent, Hala Gorani.

Hala, tell us what's going on now?

HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, today we had by many accounts the biggest turnout of anti-regime pro-democracy demonstrators to date. We're entering the third week here of protests in Cairo.

Many demonstrators, Kathleen, were telling me they were re- energized for several reasons. First, because they're saying there's too big a trust gap between them and the government, despite some concessions offered by the regime. They're saying they don't trust that the regime and the government will deliver on these democratic promises that they've made.

And then there was an interview that was given to Egyptian television by Wael Ghonim, a Google executive, who was detained for 12 days. He gave a very emotional interview where he's -- in which he said he wasn't the hero. The heroes are the people who died and who gave their lives for this pro-democracy cause, Kathleen.

So this is what we're seeing right now in Cairo as we enter the third week. Very far from being deflated. These pro-democracy demonstrators say they are more determined than ever.

PARKER: Well, we know that Wael Ghonim inspired this crowd and everybody seems to be wanting to recruit him as the movement leader. Is there any evidence that he's willing to do that?

GORANI: It doesn't seem like he's willing to play a political role. He appeared in Tahrir Square a little bit earlier. He addressed the crowd. He's been -- he's become sort of become an emblem of this revolution here in Egypt. He admitted creating a Facebook page that was sort of a virtual meeting point, an organizational tool for the demonstrators on January 25th.

But he's remained rather humble about it all and he continues to say that the people in the square are the true heroes and I read on his Twitter page today that he was actually calling for all Egyptians abroad to come back to Egypt, all the expatriates, to come back to Egypt to join in this cause, this pro democracy movement.

So he's become quite a figure head. I don't know that he'll play a political role per se, though.

SPITZER: You know, Hala, it is amazing, that interview he gave on TV was incredibly powerful, emotional, obviously motivated hundreds of thousands of people in the square. Then he showed up at the square today.

Is there any sense, any knowledge, what he will do next? Will he go back to lead the protesters again tomorrow? Will he put out a set of demands of Vice President Suleiman since he in fact was the one -- everybody thinks who's been directing all this?

GORANI: Right. Well, he has been very clear that he's not going to leave. That he's going to continue to demonstrate and protest against the regime. He was in a car with Hossam Badrawi, who is the new secretary general of the ruling party, in fact, yesterday after his release, and he told journalists -- he actually asked Hossam Badrawi to resign, that nothing less than the dismantling of this ruling party, which he considers and many protesters considered to be antiquated and not an engine for change.

Nothing less than that is going to satisfy the protesters. I myself was struck. I thought last week that potentially in the third week of these demonstrations, protesters might start to suffer from some sort of fatigue. They've been in there, many of them spending the night. But they haven't. They're adamant that they're not going to leave.

The question is going to be, can this regime continue to function as it is, with more pressure coming from the outside, and definitely as much, if not more, pressure coming from the inside of the country?

So that's going to be very interesting to see in the coming days.

PARKER: Hala, how would you characterize the crowd? Is the spirit still one of anger primarily? Is it festive? And to what extent was there a security presence from either the police or the military?

GORANI: Well, the military is still very much present in the square, still very much present in fact around downtown Cairo. When the demonstrators -- when the number of demonstrators increased dramatically this afternoon and this evening, we saw more roads blocked, more bridges blocked. So there is very much a militaristic security presence here in downtown Cairo.

Now the mood varied. It was mainly festive today, but there is some anger. When we heard from the government the formation of this committee to study constitutional reform leading up to, they say, democratic elections in September, they were some anger coming from protesters saying this is not enough. In fact, anything you say is not something we are willing to believe at this point.

Because I mentioned the trust gap, but there's also another very important gap here in Egypt and it's the generational gap. The men in charge now, the old guard, they're not just the fathers of these young people in the square. They're their grandfathers. And in some cases in Egyptian society, possibly their great grandfathers.

There is so much distance between these two sides. But it's difficult to see how over the coming months it can continue. It can sustain itself right here in Egypt.

SPITZER: Thank you, Hala Gorani, for reporting live from Cairo for that important news. We'll be checking back with you as the nights unfold in weeks ahead.

Joining us now, one of the wisest observers of the Arab world, professor of mid-eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University, and in fact who is my professor at Princeton I think 30 years ago -- I hate to admit it and I'm he does as well.

Fouad Ajami, welcome to the show once again. Thank you for being with us.

FOUAD AJAMI, PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Thank you both. Thank you for having me.

SPITZER: The question I have watching these events unfolding over the last couple of days, is there any question in anybody's mind that Omar Suleiman is directing the response from the military, the police, the -- what has been done to journalists, what has been done to Ghonim?

Isn't he the one who is at the center of this?

AJAMI: Well, Omar Suleiman, I've always said, he's Mubarak's Mubarak. The idea that Omar Suleiman will oversee a democratic transition is unbelievable. It's just -- it cannot be imagined. He's a man of the police, if you will, of the secret police of this regime.

And when you listen to what Omar Suleiman says, you can understand it. You can understand the objection of the people to him and objection of the protesters to him. He's already warned everyone that they either have a dialogue on his terms, his kind of dialogue under his conditions or they should be ready for a coup d'etat.

He has threatened a coup d'etat. He has held this as a sword over the protesters. So I think there is a complete broken trust between Omar Suleiman and these protesters. The problem here is because Mubarak has been such a polarizing figure, because the protests have so much focus on the personality of Mubarak, we've lost touch of the fact that Omar Suleiman himself is unacceptable. He's unacceptable by any criterion. And when you listen to the arguments that these people are putting forward from the regime, that they're interested in constitutional change, this is an unconstitutional regime. The talk of constitution is laughable at best. So there you have it. I mean, you're asking Omar Suleiman suddenly to undergo death bed conversion. I mean it's just impossible.

PARKER: Professor, Vice President Omar Suleiman has also said that he feels Egypt -- yes, he supports democracy but that Egypt isn't ready for democracy, that it needs to wait for a culture of democracy. Can you interpret that for us?

AJAMI: Well, I think it's the mind of an autocrat. I mean these people genuinely do not believe that the people are ready for the truth. Their people are ready for parliaments, their people are ready for democracy. They believe in their own right to rule. That's the mind of autocracy.

And again, when you listen to Omar Suleiman, you have a classic illustration of what Hala Gorani was talking about. A very important point she made. The generational split between men like Omar Suleiman and these young protesters out trying to make a new Egypt.

SPITZER: You know what also seems that what you have is a military that behind the cloak of saying the country is not ready for democracy is merely saying we're not ready to give up power.

AJAMI: Well, there --

SPITZER: There is absolutely no reason to believe when you look at the peaceful protesters that they can't participate in democracy any better or worse than anybody else in the world.

AJAMI: Well, exactly. And even the language that someone like Omar Suleiman -- remember, if we talk about Mubarak being in his '80s, Omar Suleiman is in his mid '70s. When you listen to him, and he says well, we can't ask our president to leave because he was a war -- a war hero of the 1973 war, and because we're good Egyptians. We don't ask our father to depart.

This is the old language. And this is the classic dilemma of this regime. Hunker down in the military barracks, hostile to any democratic reforms, hostile even to the very idea that their people are entitled to a new world and a new culture.

PARKER: Professor, as you know, Wael Ghonim, the Google executive --

AJAMI: Sure.

PARKER: -- has become something of a rock star overnight. He's also very attractively a reluctant hero.

AJAMI: Right.

PARKER: But do you think that he could become a galvanizing figure for this democratic movement?

AJAMI: No, I think this man -- this man did what he's good at. This young man -- he provided, if you will, the new technology and he provided the stirring moment now for the Egyptian people.

Who is going to rule Egypt? We really don't know. And who will emerge from the chaos of this movement? We don't know. And that's exactly what Mubarak, if he -- he willed this kind of vacuum. He willed it, he created it, he benefited by this kind of vacuum.

And I don't see in Wael Ghonim a kind of a desire to rule. I think he's a -- just simply -- life gave him this role and he played it. I mean he's an enabler of this technological dimension of this revolt. But I don't see him bidding for power. I don't see him wanting to be a ruler. I don't see him wanting to be a president of this new order.

SPITZER: You know, Professor, I want -- I want to read to you some words you wrote in an article just this week in which you described the role of the Obama administration. And you said that the -- and I will quote here. "The Arab liberals were quick to read Barack Obama and they gave up on him."

AJAMI: Yes.

SPITZER: "They saw his comfort with the autocracies, his eagerness to engage and conciliate the dictators." Has the White House almost enabled the dictatorships to stay in place because it has not pursued an aggressive agenda of democratization?

AJAMI: Well, to be fair to this particular White House, and if we're sticking to the case of Hosni Mubarak, if you will, Hosni Mubarak has played five American presidents a very sly game. Since 1981 he's seen five American presidents.

And every American president looked at Mubarak and said, you know, better the devil you know than the one you don't know. And even Vice President Cheney the other day said Mubarak is a good man. He's been a good ally of the American government. But there is one thing that's clear about President Obama.

President Obama from day one he extended an olive branch to the autocracies. He said he would engage Syria and Iran, and then he basically let everyone know that the diplomacy of freedom, the intervention in the region, by George W. Bush is hereby dead and buried.

So yes, I think, basically the autocrats were given a pass and they were told that we will not really interfere in their affairs. And it's where we stand today.

PARKER: Professor, last night on "ANDERSON COOPER" you said that the protesters have now entered the most dangerous phase.

AJAMI: Yes.

PARKER: Can you tell us about that? Why did you say that?

AJAMI: Well, you know I think when you look at these kinds of situations, if we -- if indeed Mubarak basically hunkers down, if he has seven more months, if he has all kinds of opportunities to avenge himself against the leaders of this revolt, I remember a friend of mine who is involved in Egyptian politics. And he said in October '81 when Sadat was assassinated, the word came to the prison, and my friend was in prison, that Sadat was wounded but not killed and they were terrified because they thought he will come and finish them all off.

This is a very dangerous moment for the leaders of the civilian. Because I think for them, the police, the secret police, the Interior Ministry, they all know who they are. And they can all find them. So sometimes when you really fight a pharaoh, when you fight a despot, you have to be -- you have to move him aside because he is -- you know, there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded dictator.

SPITZER: All right. Fouad Ajami, thank you so much for joining us. Always fascinating to hear what you have to say.

PARKER: Up next, if you judge by the pictures, right now Egypt seems like a dangerous place. Our next guest says there are dangers we haven't even seen and they are even more disturbing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Leslie Gelb was a foreign policy expert who has been shooting up flares about the real dangers in the Egyptian uprising. From the Muslim brotherhood to the military, Leslie Gelb says we shouldn't get carried away by the drama of the protests.

He joins us tonight. Welcome.

LESLIE GELB: It's good to be here.

SPITZER: First question, what are you afraid of? There's this sense of danger, sort of, that's exuded by all your columns. Tell us what are you afraid of?

GELB: Well, the main thing I'm afraid of is the stakes here are enormous. I would compare them to what it was like in 1979 with Iran. Iran was our major ally in that whole part of the world.

SPITZER: And that didn't turn out so well.

GELB: Turned out horribly. The stakes are also comparable to us, to what the revolutions in Eastern Europe were in 1989 to the Soviet Union.

SPITZER: That turned out pretty well.

GELB: It turned out well for us, but this is sea change material. And whenever you're involved in a situation like that, you better worry. SPITZER: Is there anybody in control? Or is this just a dynamic that is the result of hundreds exogenous forces that are just going to produce something we can't control at this point?

GELB: Well, I don't think there's anyone really in control of the protesters in the square in Cairo. That's just, I mean, I don't want to use this pejoratively, but it's like a nice mob.

SPITZER: Right. Better than a dangerous mob.

GELB: Yes. They're basically good guys and they're trying to do good things. They aren't a government. And it's very hard to get from where they are to be a government.

SPITZER: OK. Let me read an excerpt of what I thought was stupendous column in "The Daily Beast," in which you said, and I'm going to quote now. "Most of the American Talkocracy," by which you mean TV folks like me -- all right, I won't take it personally -- "is now so utterly intoxicated with protestocracy," the folks on the street, "that they outright neglect the enormous trials of getting from the streets to a real democracy. It's hard as hell, and the process lends itself to hijacking by extremists."

So I guess what you're saying is the street, the sort of nice mob as you say, can still go on anyone over number of directions. And we got people like the Muslim brotherhood that we got to deal with.

GELB: Oh, yes, the Muslim brotherhood and don't forget the military. The military really is who's in charge in Egypt. Mubarak sits on top of the military establishment, but the military really runs things. They run a good chunk of the economy and they hold the power. They run the secret services and the like. And the military is not one thing. Just like protestocracy is not one thing. The military has lots of wheels within wheels. And one of those factions could take over and they could turn out to be anti-American as well.

SPITZER: Well, if I --

GELB: Remember Gamal Abdel Nasser came from those ranks.

SPITZER: This is a critical point. And I think most of us have in fact forgotten you've got Mubarak sitting on top, as you say, who has become the personification of all that is evil. But beneath him, the three critical positions, the vice president, the prime minister and then the secretary of the Defense chief, all in the military. And they have not either gone anywhere or indicated really, so far, willingness to compromise.

GELB: I doubt that they will compromise. They have all the power. They can outwait the broadcasters. At a certain point, the number of protesters will dwindle from the hundreds of thousands to the several thousands, and maybe two weeks from now or month from now, but the military, I think, is willing to outwait them.

The tricky thing comes as -- there has to be a transition, and we do want a transition. The situation is deeply unstable. And we need the help of Mr. Mubarak and the military to kind of make it work. Now it's not fashionable to say that. It's fashionable to say let's just get rid of these bad guys. But they really have the power. Not the people on the streets.

SPITZER: Nobody think theocracy is where Egypt goes. Did you buy that?

GELB: Yes, I sort of do buy it, because it's been secular society for a long, long time. It has those roots, but that doesn't mean that some faction within the Muslim that isn't in favor of peace and democracy and none violence and all the rest. Really could in a roiling situation grab hold of the reins of power and take it toward an Islamic state. And you don't know what will happen then.

SPITZER: Is the White House getting it right?

GELB: I think the White House in private has it mostly right. They're trying for a transition. They're trying to get Mubarak and the military to go along with it. To move toward an Egypt with more openness, a civil society, political parties. That's fine in private.

Publicly, they keep mouthing off ten times a day because the press is asking them questions. What the devil do they care whether the president is asking them questions? Take your position, which was -- they did take the right position at one point, which was we want a peaceful and orderly transition to a democratic society, not a fake democracy, and we're willing to help the Egyptians in any way we can. That's enough.

SPITZER: And then you shut up?

GELB: Yes. And possibly you do the best you can.

SPITZER: We're both politicians and journalists, saying nothing is very hard.

GELB: Of course it's very hard, but it's the right thing. And what's more, I think if the White House took that stance and said the main thing is to get this right, not to answer questions in a fast- moving situation, the public would applaud.

SPITZER: You're right. Well, let's see if they follow your wisdom. I somehow doubt it. All right, let's go.

GELB: They will. They will.

SPITZER: I doubt it. All right, let's go. Thank you so much for being here.

Coming up, we've seen the faces of revolution in Egypt, but there's one face you may not have seen. It belongs to the young man who seems to have started it all. We'll tell you his story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In a nation starved for heroes, two faces emerged -- one belongs to the dead, one to the living. First, the living.

We've been talking about that young Google executive Wael Ghonim, the hero of the hour in Egypt. Ghonim says he's no hero. But he did ignite the revolution by making a hero out of someone else.

On a Facebook page, he dedicated to another young man who died last summer. It's called "We Are All Khalid Said."

PARKER: Khalid Said was a 28-year-old business man in Alexandria. Last June, he was dragged from an Internet cafe by police and beaten to death. Why? Because he was going to post a video detailing police corruption. Within days, someone who called himself El Shaheed, which means the murder, created a Facebook to protest police brutality. It quickly a rallying cry for the entire protest movement in Egypt.

SPITZER: Since the page first appeared, a half million users have joined it to honor Khalid Said, but also to monitor human rights abuses and to organize anti-government demonstrations. And now the world has learned the identity of El Shaheed. The one who started it all. His name is Wael Ghonim.

"This isn't about me" says Ghonim, "it's about Egypt." And of course that modesty has only made him more admired. The Facebook page he started anonymously has now spawned a new anonymous page posted by one of Ghonim's many admirers.

PARKER: When we last check that page called "I Authorize Wael Ghonim to Speak on Behalf Egypt's Revolutionaries" already had more than 200,000 members and is growing exponentially. You can find a link on our Web site. Posted on the page is a photograph taken today in Tahrir Square of Wael Ghonim embracing the mother of Khalid Said.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: We've seen the pictures from Cairo, the protest and pitch battles in Tahrir Square is also home to the Egyptian museum where one of the most ancient treasures in the world narrowly escaped destruction. Frederick Pleitgen has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A heavy lock and chain keep the Egyptian museum shut. Inside, signs of the recent turmoil when the area around the building was engulfed in violence and looters tried to get hold of Egypt's most valuable treasures.

Tarek El-Alwady, the museum's director, says fortunately, the damage is minimal.

TAREK EL AWADY, DIRECTOR, EGYPTIAN MUSEUM: This was disturbed, and only we had this part broken. And now they are working on it. But the rest is completely safe. PLEITGEN: These artifacts are thousands of years old. Curators at the museum are now busy restoring them.

AWADY: And this one, it was found broken from here, and now you see it's back to normal.

PLEITGEN: The rioting and street battles in central Cairo happened right next to the Egyptian Museum. As pro-and-anti-Mubarak protesters hurled rocks and fire bombs at each other, would-be looters tried to get into the museum. By all accounts, only one got in.

AWADY: He came in from the glass window from the roof using the telephone wire, telephone and Internet wires. And he fell on a showcase. He broke the showcase and he got badly injured on his back and his hands.

PLEITGEN: Museum staff say the man seemed to have no knowledge of artifacts, that he was looking for gold and simply threw ancient wooden statues on the floor thinking they were worthless. And so the museum's real treasures, like the priceless mask of King Tut, survived unscathed.

(on camera): This is one of the most prized artifacts in the entire world, and when the uprising here began, there was a lot of fear that looters could get in here or that the mask could get damaged. But luckily, that never happened, and it remained safe the whole time.

(voice-over): After a short rampage through the museum, the sole looter was caught, of all places, next to a statue of Sekhmet, the Egyptian goddess of protection. And the goddess also seems to have played with the minds of other would-be looters.

(on camera): One of the really bizarre things that happened is that more looters actually made it on to the premises, but they didn't go into the museum. Instead, they went into the souvenir shop and looted souvenirs thinking they were taking Egyptian artifacts.

(voice-over): The Egyptian army has taken over security for the museum. Soldiers kept an eye on us as we got our tour, and tanks are in place outside after a close call for some of the world's most famous ancient treasures that survived thanks to the courage of the museum staff and perhaps some help from the gods.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Cairo, Egypt.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PARKER: When we return, we turn to politics. A Republican who says he's had enough and can't take it anymore.

SPITZER: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: Now to politics. It finally happened. A Republican Party leader has gotten so fed up with the party's antics and he says he's not going to take it anymore. Dick Wadhams is the chairman of the Colorado Republicans, but today he went rogue. He announced he's not running for a third time because, and I quote, "I'm tired of the nuts who have no grasp of what the state party role is."

He joins us now from Denver.

Welcome, Dick.

DICK WADHAMS, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY: Hi, Kathleen. Nice to be with you.

PARKER: It's great to have you here. So I've got to ask you, Dick, what took you so long?

WADHAMS: Well, I had four great years as state chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. I wouldn't trade it for anything. And you know, after four years, it's time to do something else.

PARKER: What pushed you over the edge? What was the final straw?

WADHAMS: You know, Kathleen, we had a lot of chaos in our governor's race to say the least, this past election, where we had somebody nominated who proved to be not a great candidate, whose resume was exaggerated.

We had Tom Tancredo enter the race. It was quite a mess. Had a lot of activists who initially where accusing the state party of cutting back room deals, nominating candidates, which was not true. We had a very free and open and fair nomination process. And then when our candidate eventual nominee that they supported collapsed, the accusations were made, why didn't you take care of him to begin with? Why did you ever let him get this far? Well, you can't have it both ways.

Those were the kinds of things that were going on. And I just decided, you know what? I think I've had enough of this.

PARKER: So in other words, after this midterm election when Republicans had this huge sweep, you're saying basically you were getting blamed for the losses. The Democrat took the governor's seat and the Senate seat as well. So you were being unfairly blamed, is that what you're saying?

WADHAMS: Well, I think there's an exaggerated notion on the part of a lot of people about the power of a state chairman or a state party. You know, our campaign finance laws, the election laws, period, greatly restrict what parties and state chairs can and cannot do.

We really don't sit in back rooms cutting deals for who's going to be the nominee. Maybe that happened years ago, but in this day and age, these nominations are up for grabs in open primaries. We have caucuses here in Colorado as well. And the notion that any state chairman can control the process is ludicrous. My role as state chairman and any state chairman is to do everything we can to get the Republican vote out. To do everything we can to support our Republican candidates, but we have to rely on the candidates themselves to rise to the occasion to do the things necessary to win with our help.

PARKER: Well, Dick, as you left, or in your parting remarks, you took some shots at the Tea Party. Here's another quote. "I am tired with those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions?"

So what are these notions? And also, who are the crazies? What are we talking about?

WADHAMS: You know, I really didn't personalize it to Tea Party activists, Kathleen. Actually, it was a combination of both new and old activists that had this notion that I could have stem the chaos in the governor's race from happening and I couldn't have.

It took on a life of its own. We had unique incidents that happened that led to the nomination of the candidate that we did nominate. And it was not just in time to the new people who are new to the process, unfortunately, there were a lot of old veteran activists who also engaged in this bizarre allegation and conspiracy theory that they did.

PARKER: Well, we seem to be living at a time that's ripe for conspiracy theories. And, you know, there are a lot of this going on at the national level, too. And I certainly don't intend to in pin the Tea Party movement, because there are a lot of wonderful people in that movement.

WADHAMS: That's right.

PARKER: And you know, every movement has its own share of -- how do we put it? Interesting people.

WADHAMS: That's right.

PARKER: But let's talk about Republican politics on the national level. A new CNN POLL says that 68 percent of Republicans just want someone who can beat Obama, regardless of ideology. And this seems to me perhaps a sign that we are nearing a point where the purity test aspect of the GOP maybe fading. And it seems to me also essential if the GOP is ever going to win another national election. How do you see that? How do you interpret that?

WADHAMS: You know, I think that's right, Kathleen. The fact is I think Republicans are hungry to win back the White House. We've seen with President Obama and his administration, along with the Democratic majorities in the Congress that previously existed, the damage they can do to this country with the passage of that health care bill, the failed stimulus bill, the various bailouts, and I think there is a hunger in our party to win.

And I think we do need to nominate a candidate that can reach out to those unaffiliated voters that swing elections across the country. Clearly, that's the case here in Colorado. We will probably be here in Colorado one of a handful of states that will determine the next president of the United States, and we can't win on just Republican votes. We have to have a candidate who appeals to those unaffiliated voters, especially in the suburbs of Denver to win Colorado. And I think a lot of Republicans are going to be looking for that individual in our nomination process.

PARKER: Well now, Dick, are you saying that you think social issues are going to take a backseat this time around?

WADHAMS: I think the social issues will always play a role in our nomination, but I also know what the American people are concerned about in any poll I've seen are the fiscal standards of our nation. I mean, people are concerned about the debt and the deficit. They're concerned about the overreach of power by the federal government. And I think those are going to be the issues that will define our nomination fight and also the general election in November of 2012.

And so while social issues are important, and always will be in the Republican Party, we are virtually a pro-life party, but on the other hand, I think that the focus will be on fiscal issues in this coming campaign.

PARKER: OK, one more quick question, taking you back to Colorado. What's your advice for whoever succeeds you? Quickly.

WADHAMS: You know, we need a party that reaches out to those unaffiliated voters. We can't win with just conservatives or Republicans.

PARKER: All right Dick Wadhams, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

WADHAMS: Thank you.

PARKER: Thank you for watching. Good night from New York.

"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.