FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With Egyptian protesters hitting the streets for a week now, there is a growing sense of frustration at the lack of response from the U.S.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/31/art.egypt.protests.jpg caption="Protestors hold an anti Hosni Mubarek sign in Tahrir Square during afternoon anti-government protests today in Cairo."]
Many point to the speech President Obama made to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009.
In it, he spoke about Democracy and warned that governments can't suppress the rights of the people.
So... almost two years later - these protesters want to know why President Obama isn't putting his money where his mouth is - and openly supporting them.
It's a reasonable question.
Some in the Middle East are going even farther. The Israeli newspaper Ha-aretz writes that Mr. Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Egypt, "and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled."
The piece suggests President Obama has been too cautious - sitting on the fence and neither embracing despised leaders nor preaching for Democracy.
But supporters of the administration say that abandoning a key ally in a time of crisis would damage America's interests in the region. What kind of message would it send to other allies?
Also, others see Egypt as a moderate force in a region of Islamic extremists like Iran. They say Egypt has helped keep peace between Israel and the Arab world.
Meanwhile, there are signs that after 30 years, the White House is quietly preparing for a post-Mubarak Egypt.
One former Obama official tells the Los Angeles Times that the administration recognizes it has to be "on the right side of history," and that it can't try to keep Mubarak in power at all costs.
Here’s my question to you: What is the U.S. role when it comes to violence and political unrest in the Middle East?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Lou writes:
There has always been conflict in the Mideast and we will continue to be affected by it as long as we are so dependent on their oil. Our sputnik moment should be making a car that can run on anything but oil. Just think of the peace we could have if we weren't always trying to pacify some oil-rich dictator.
Pete in Georgia writes:
To stay out of their business. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars on corrupt governments all over the globe, and for what? The people of these countries know nothing of our generosity, don't care about it and end up hating us regardless.
P. in Pennsylvania writes:
The U.S. should be very careful not to choose sides but support a more democratic government that gives the people more rights and freedom than they have now. The U.S. has to walk a fine line when doing this. It is like an outsider getting involved in a family argument. You need to watch what you say and do or the whole family will turn against you.
JD writes:
The role of the U.S. in an unstable Middle East is to be "on the right side of history"... These days, being on the right side means giving moral support to a downtrodden populace trying to oust a ruthless dictator, while giving the same dictator financial support to maintain a military for the purpose of putting down his enemies. A brilliant policy really, in its simplicity. Being on both sides of history always guarantees you'll come out on the right side.
Kathie writes:
It is long past time for us to stop sticking our noses in everyone else's business. How would we feel if another country interfered in our affairs?
Peter in Tarrytown, New York writes:
It is time for the U.S. to fish or cut bait. Either we support democracy, civil and human rights and we oppose dictatorial countries or we don't. We have the opportunity now to back the citizens of Egypt or look like hypocrites. What do we stand for if we don't support the citizenry of Egypt now?