We can remove the question mark now. The people have spoken, the dictator has (finally) heard them, and Hosni Mubarak has stepped down after three decades as Egypt’s ruler. What happens next? A true move toward some form of democracy, or Military Dictatorship II: Egyptian Boogaloo? Who the hell knows? For now, the protesters are jubilant. I heard a correspondent tell NPR that the joy in Cairo’s streets is “ten times greater than if Egypt had won the World Cup.” Heh. He also said it’ll be an “all-night party.” Well, good for them. Now let’s hope Egypt’s future is as joyous as is present, and that Iowahawk’s cynical take isn’t the final answer: “Vegas Line on next Egyptian Goverment: Kleptocrat Thugs 3-1, Genocidal Theocrats 2-5, Gentle Pro-Democracy Student Flower Children 87 million-1.”
I’m optimistic. The protestors were remarkably non-violent throught the whole affair, and the the US can deal with (and has dealt extensively with) the popular Egyptian Army. Further, the spokesmen for the popular movement (El Baradei and Wael Ghonim) are intelligent, democratic, and assertive.
The only caveat: if the Islamic Brotherhood takes over, the world explodes. Otherwise it’s great.
Isn’t this the same El Baradei that allowed himself and his inspectors to be told when and where he was permitted to carry out “spontaneous” “unannounced” inspections for nuclear stuff by Saddam Hussein ?
Still, we should try to be optimistic … it’s not as if our Washington Leaders are the same ones who made such a mess back in 1979, now, is it ?
(sigh) I apologise [closing bold quote]
Yes, It’s the same El Baradei who said that Saddam didn’t have Nuclear weapons. If American’s listened to him we could have saved a few hundred thousand lives.
President Obama has consistently been in favor of Mubarak stepping down and acedeing to the wishes of the Egyptian people. Pretending to paint it as otherwise based on what one newspaper reported one diplomat said is asinine (as usual for you Alasdair). Further, the situation is far more about what the Egyptian people do and decide than what America wants. It’s not about us, its about THEM. THEY are the ones who brought this change upon their country, not us. Certainly we have foreign policy and diplomatic interests and will be involved from an international standpoint, but I fail to see how the U.S. is going to be the ones playing a key role in this (nor should it). Obama has done the exact right thing in voice support for the Egyptian people and encouraging Mubarak to step aside.
Also you REALLY shouldn’t be bringing up history since it was past Republican regimes in this country who supported such wonderful people as Saddam Huessein and Osama bin Ladin. That certainly worked out well for us didn’t it?
@Sandy – not to mention billions of dollars.
Ahhh, Sandy …w e have missed your Words fo Wisdom …
Actually, I doubt if *anyone* thought that Saddam had any working nuclear weaponry – if he had, he would most likely have used it on Iran, already …
Some of us, however, were a tad concerned about his acquisition of expensive aluminim tubes as plant-pots for his palaces (since other folk round the planet used such tubes as part of centrifuge refinement/enrichment of Uranium) … I take it you were in the group who believed he just wanted to recreate the Hanging Gardens of Babylon ?
David #6 – it is clear that you didn’t look at the site I linked in #3 – which clearly shows that Obama is a number of things – and externally consistent ain’t *exactly* how one would describe him … (he does seem to be internally consistent, however) …
Just what the US and the planet need right now … a US President who is a cross between Carter and Governor Moonbeam …
David, you’re dead wrong about Obama having consistently been “in favor of Mubarak stepping down and acedeing to the wishes of the Egyptian people”. Obama (and the rest of the U.S. diplomatic apparatus) eventually came around about a week or so ago, but for the first couple weeks, our leaders were hedging and only talking about their desires to see the regime not initiate a bloody crackdown, and to talk to the reformers and listen to their demands. They were scared to commit one way or the other — too timid in fear of the consequences if they backed Mubarak and he fell, or backed the protesters and Mubarak stayed in power. This was not a proud moment for Obama, the State Department, or our Intelligence agencies.
One man’s “timidity” is another man’s prudence. The administration was RIGHT to be concerned about picking the wrong side, and unless there was some tangible benefit to the protesters in explicitly siding with them (which seems doubtful), I tend to believe that saying as little as possible, and committing to less, was in fact the right course of action — viscerally unsatisfying though it may be. Diplomacy is complicated and subtle, and saying what feels good is not always the right choice. I, for one, am glad we have grownups running the State Department, not reckless blowhards of the John Bolton ilk, who will say whatever inflammatory thing feels right in the moment, as if the theme music of “Team America: World Police” is an astute foreign policy philosophy. Anyway, Obama’s “timid” approach didn’t prevent Mubarak from being ousted here, so what exactly are we complaining about?
Note to self: Don’t feed the troll.
President Obama has consistently been in favor of Mubarak stepping down and acedeing to the wishes of the Egyptian people.
We have always been at war with Oceania.
Also you REALLY shouldn’t be bringing up history since it was past Republican regimes in this country who supported such wonderful people as Saddam Huessein and Osama bin Ladin. That certainly worked out well for us didn’t it?
Actually, it appears that the Kennedy administration were the ones who began our involvement with Saddam:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2003/04/10/Exclusive-Saddam-key-in-early-CIA-plot/UPI-65571050017416/
As for Osama, the truth seems to lie in two places. Either we did not support him at all, or if we did support him, that support started in mid-1979. If you can’t remember back that far, the Republicans were not in charge then……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy
but for the first couple weeks, our leaders were hedging and only talking about their desires to see the regime not initiate a bloody crackdown, and to talk to the reformers and listen to their demands. They were scared to commit one way or the other — too timid in fear of the consequences if they backed Mubarak and he fell, or backed the protesters and Mubarak stayed in power.
What does this remind me of? Something to do with Iran and a Green revolution?
Brendan #11 – to see how consistent our First Occupant’s Adminstration has been about Mubarak, the cites are nicely listed at teh site in #3 …
“On Tuesday the Obama Administration asked Hosni Mubarak to step aside.
On Wednesday they said that transitioning power “now means yesterday.”
On Saturday morning the Obama Administration said Mubarak must stay.
On Saturday evening the Obama Administration said Mubarak should step aside.
On Sunday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak must stay in power.
On Tuesday the Obama Administration said that political reform will be a gradual process.”
Follow the link in #3 and you will see that it has the lin ks for each of the positions that were held diversly and successively according to how the Obamaniacs felt the wind might be blowing … made me positively nostalgic for Governor Moonbeam, it did !
Alasdair, your skill of talking out of both sides of your mouth must be the envy of everyone from Baghdad Bob to the entertainers at Fox News. In post #2 you attempt to diminish Elbaradei’s work with the IAEA in finding out Hussein had no Nukes, or nuclear weapon capability, then act condescending towards me in post #8 for pointing out that you were actually the dimwit in the equation, then you try to re-draw a link between Hussein and the Aluminum tubing he was supposedly going to use to enrich Uranium apparently being ignorant of the fact that, that was something else Elbaredei debunked. The tubing Hussein had could not be used for enriching uranium. We actually do know these things now, it’s not debatable like it was before the war.
In post #8 you show your forgetfullness or dishonesty in recalling the lead up to Iraq war where over 100 speeches were given by Bush, Rice, and Cheney postulating that Americans could wake up to a mushroom cloud if we don’t attack Iraq now. That was because “everbody” knew Hussein didn’t have nukes, I suppose. Then why did the Bush administration keep lying to Americans about it?
Hell, the famous Op/Ed piece written by Joe Wilson debunking the Bush Lies in the SOTU address regarding Hussein’s Nuclear incapabalities was to try and inform people who believed that BS, that it was 9 years ago, and morons still don’t know the truth, apparently.
Clearly you don’t want to hear the truth, but if anyone else is interested:
“Hussein has not developed any capablities with respect to WMD”
–Colin Powell, February 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ
Open your damn eyes and mind, and/or try to get informed.
One man’s “timidity” is another man’s prudence.
Really? We’re reduced to tossing out re-formed cliches and slurring irrelevant poppycocks like John Bolton in order to defend Obama, HRC, Panetta, Clapper, et al? What’s next, “One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”? Brendan, you are simply way to smart and principled to be wasting your time defending the un-smart and principle-less.
Even if I accept the proposition that there was any strategic value whatsoever in either standing by Mubarak or waffling diplomatically until we were sure which way the wind was blowing, it was clear these protests caught our government and its leaders completely by surprise. And given that Mubarak is 82 and was already in power for 30-plus years, what was our game plan for when he died or stepped down? It’s obvious we didn’t have one! Why the eff would it be worth spending one iota of energy holding out hope that a geezer can outlast these protests when he could just as well fall dead weeks or months later?
Now let’s consider the moral dimensions. Let’s accept for the moment the realpolitik tactics that it is sometimes okay and necessary to support dictators to realize broader strategic goals. To what end do you stick with these tactics when they begin to fail? Critics of Bush continually whined about our “exit strategy” vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan; well, where was our “exit strategy” once our beloved dictator friends start to die off or get overthrown by their oppressed subjects?
To me, this failure of our government is indicative of the rot straight down our intel and diplomatic apparatus (i.e. the State Department) — and no, it’s not a partisan issue, it’s an ideological issue. If our foreign policy principles were based on our Founding principles — that is, we preached what we practiced concerning things like liberty and democracy — then tremors of discontent like what we saw previously in Iran and now in Tunisia and Egypt are then and now and always good things, and it is correct to undergird them with the full-throated support of the United States president and the State Department. When you truly believe in freedom and democracy, you are always careful when supporting the likes of Mubarak, and you always have ten different plans for when and how to disengage and dump when confronted with a death, assassination, or widespread public discontent. The fact that we didn’t says we were not prepared, and we were not prepared because our State Dept and foreign policy elites don’t really believe in what Jefferson wrote:
We should have supported Mubarak while holding our noses, and instead we embraced him as a true and dear ally. And for what: because he was smart enough not to fuck with Israel and see Egypt get its ass kicked yet again, and take our billions in foreign aid? I’m sorry but we spent the past thirty years creating an Egypt public that hates our guts, and even after we watched Egyptian-born terrorists carry out 9/11, we still pretended we could ignore the blowback. Well heck, even Noam Chomsky is right about one thing. This was a golden opportunity to begin rebuilding our cred with the “Arab street”, by supporting them instead of their dictators, and while we are a long way from history rendering a final verdict, it looks to me like we blew it. Big time.
Sandy #17 – nice try, classic fail, however … there is a significant different between “has not developed” and “is doing his level best with help from Syria et al to develop” … hey, if you want to keep believing that it’s all the Eeeevil Booosh’s fault, go for it … and you can vote for our current crop whose abilities *you* believe are so stellar that they can make unemployment go down, nationally, while the numbers of people employed nationally go down (or rise derisorily minisculely) … it takes just as much irrational belief to believe in one as the other …
Out of curiosity, can you cite just one of the URLs to prove that the Bush folk said “Americans could wake up to a mushroom cloud if we don’t attack Iraq now.” ??? After all, with 100 to choose from, that should be a simple thing to prove …
There were over a hundred speeches given by Cheney, Rice and Bush in 2002 citing a Mushroom cloud as a reason to drum up support for going to war with Hussein. It’s hard for me to believe that you need my help in finding references as it took less than 1 second (or the time it woudl take you to type in “Mushroom Cloud Bush” in the google search engine).
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-07/politics/bush.transcript_1_weapons-terrorism-and-practices-terror-murderous-tyrant?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
If you aren’t the reading type, like Bush, here’s one Youtube speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H08bStqBvk0
Versions of this speech were given by Bush around the country daily for nearly the entire year of 2002, always warning not to wait for a Mushroom Cloud to appear over US cities before attacking Iraq (as if).
Sandy – did you read the entire speech ?
You seem to have missed significant parts …
“The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.”
And *you* have full confidence that Saddam could be trusted at his word that he wasn’t doing his level best to develop weapons as powerful as he could get away with ?
For people who understand the English language, there is a significant difference between “Americans could wake up to a mushroom cloud if we don’t attack Iraq now.” and “Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” … the former sounds like the expression of a spoiled child (“If we don’t pass the Healthcare reform NOW, before we know what’s in it, people will die !”) – the latter is the prudent expression of someone recognising that a continuing bad situation needs to be dealt with before it gets out of hand .,.
You might consider reading the rest of the speech, which gives additional adult reasons for why it is/was important …