It's not THAT hard, Mr. President....just SAY it... "We Call On President Mubarak To Resign"

[Ken Burch]

The guy isn't likely to hang on now anyway...if he does, he's got nowhere else to go...Putin and the Chinese wouldn't line up with somebody who's that weak...just tell him to go and be done with it...

Even the "independents" will back you up on THAT one.

[ananda]

1. Who cares about backing.

It's the right thing to do.

[Ken Burch]

2. Of course it is, but no government anywhere ever does something just because

it's the right thing to do.

[Mojeoux]

41. This is the Moral thing to do. Un-reccing Good Posts is..........NOT!!! nt

[boston bean]

3. He can't do that. It would make it look like he was too involved and part of the process

for who takes his place.

[Ken Burch]

4. As I recall, the Reagan people did that when Marcos was pushed out by "People Power"

n/t.

[sufrommich]

14. I don't remember him publicly calling for Marcos to step down.nt

[Ken Burch]

23. I edited the post to change it to the administration, rather than Reagan himself.

n/t.

[sufrommich]

26. Didn't they privately tell him to step down though? nt

[boston bean]

34. I don't think that's so. He pretty much stuck by his side... nt

[spanone]

78. why act like reagan people?

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Sure he can...

...this is DU. I remember back when DUites were calling for Obama to institute Medicare for All by executive order.

The American President is all-powerful.

[Ken Burch]

9. Calling on Mubarak to resign doesn't require Senate approval

(btw, even if the executive order had been ruled unconstitutional, it would have kept the young activists in the tent and brought them to the polls in November, because they would have known which side the prez was on, so he had nothing to lose by going for it).

[grahamhgreen]

53. LOL. The billions in aid already put us squarley behind the dictator - at our own detriment.

[boston bean]

63. true. and anything he says now can be construed to mean something else, to our own detriment.

and the egyptian people.

They don't trust us for good reason. What would his words mean, would it make everything OK?

No, it wouldn't.

If Obama says anything like "mubarak step down now" in public, people will begin to wonder if he has some control of the situation.

[grahamhgreen]

67. Giving billions in hard power used to torture has it's obvious blowback.

[boston bean]

71. What did I just agree with? but what would his words mean

to the egyptians now.

they would mean nothing and only make them more suspicious.

Obama/clinton et al have to let the egyptians handle this. They (the egyptians) are doing a fine job for themselves.

[Ignis]

83. Sure he can. It simply takes courage and a commitment to democracy.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I agree...

But I don't think Obama can do it...

That would mean he'd have to actually take a stand on something.

And then he might offend someone.

:eyes:

[Cirque du So-What]

22. Yes, I'm SURE that's it!

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

6. "unrec's" on THIS? typical

The "nuance at ANY price" crowd strikes again.

[SidDithers]

21. Is it that surprising that people might disagree with you?...

Christ, I can't wait for unrec and rec to be gone.

Sid

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

54. To unrec with this is to stand by all powerful oligarhies.

[Catherina]

90. Working overtime now. You thought their job was hard before! n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

8. While it may be the ethically correct, I am not sure they require our interference...

....in what is, after all, an internal matter.

[Jennicut]

11. I don't think some people there even WANT our interference.

[Ken Burch]

12. Actually, such a call would be signalling our NON-interference.

Which we should ALSO do by pulling our troops out of the Sinai, where they have no reason to be posted.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. It might not be wanted over there...

...or make a difference over there, or even help over there....

But the first priority of an American President -- if he's a Democract -- is to scratch whatever DU's itch is, and the devil take the hindmost.

[Ken Burch]

15. It's not OUR itch...it's the wish of the people of Egypt.

Can you PLEASE get it out of your head that nobody expresses their views here just out of self-indulgence? Nobody deserves to be infantilized by you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

40. Did they tell you?

[Ken Burch]

42. There in the streets, in the millions, telling the WORLD!

They want him gone...they don't want neutrality from the world...they want the world on their side...and they want it made clear that the U.S. won't send in the troops from the Sinai to save the guy.

[Davis_X_Machina]

45. All 600 of them -- counting the medics, mechanics, and civilian..

....sensor technicians. That should prop Mubarak up, no problem.

First, though, the UN has to release them.

[Ken Burch]

48. They sent in more in the last week.

there was no reason to do that. And how do we know these will be the last?

[grahamhgreen]

56. The billions we gave to prop up the police state makes us required to step up fotr the people.

[Liberal Veteran]

62. Doubling a wrong makes it three times as bad.

The soft hand of diplomacy is required, not the sharp point of reaction.

[grahamhgreen]

66. That is exactly what we are asking for, the soft statement, such as:

"We believe it is time for President Mubarak to consider stepping down in the interests of the Egyptian people whom he truly cares about."

That's all.

[Liberal Veteran]

70. That could be seen as taking sides and raise grave doubts about the legitimacy of the uprising.

It's not like we are coin of the realm in that region.

[boston bean]

72. +1

[polmaven]

76. You nailed it.

n/t

[defendandprotect]

10. Obama/US should call for Mubarak to step down -- now ....

[Arkana]

16. Yeah, cause sticking our nose into Middle Eastern affairs

has always served us well.

It's not his place to take sides. Egypt has to fix their own problems.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. +1000

I couldn't agree more.

[Ken Burch]

19. We're taking sides when the president says NOTHING

That still leaves the possibility, in the minds of the Egyptian people, that we might send in the troops we have in Sinai(I assume you'd agree that those troops should be pulled out immediately)to save the old hair dye addict.

[Arkana]

25. How the fuck do you arrive at this conclusion?

We are not going to get into more fucking nation-building. It has burned us over and over, and finally we have a President who's realizing that--and now we have LIBERALS calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government by the United States? If Egypt wants a change in leadership, they're going to have to bring it about themselves.

[Ken Burch]

28. At least, at the very least, we could pull the troops out of the Sinai

And state that we would do NOTHING to save Mubarak. You couldn't object to THAT, could you?

[Davis_X_Machina]

44. They're less than 600 in number...

...they're there as part of a multinational force, and they're doing nothing whatsoever to prop Mubarak up, but hey, whatever makes you feel good.

[Ken Burch]

46. They shouldn't be there at all. Their presence sows distrust of our intentions.

And it would be easy to send in thousands more if HRC got her way and we did the Kissinger thing.

[Davis_X_Machina]

49. The Israelis and Egyptians...

....asked us to put them there. It was one of the lynch-pins of the Camp David Accord.

But if a reinforced company of Kansas National Guardsmen are going to cause the course of events in the Middle East to go astray, I agree, they should come home. They've got one Sherpa. It'll take about seven or eight flights. They'll be gone by, say Tuesday.

That should change history.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

:crazy:

[Arkana]

31. Boy, that Obama fellow is just damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[Ken Burch]

39. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

:thumbsup:

[grahamhgreen]

61. They are bringing it about by themselves, let's clear up our dirty laundry by standing up

for what is right for a change - real democracy, not autocratic puppets, or is that all our own leaders have become?

[grahamhgreen]

59. Then we have to balance out the billions that went to torture people, by asking for his ouster.

We are not neutral. Staying silent makes us even more guilty.

[Catherina]

91. Like all those checks Obama sent over weren't sticking our nose in. Very funny. n/t

[Arkana]

98. You so-called "progressives" have become overnight converts

to the John Bolton school of diplomacy. It's funny, it really is.

[JoePhilly]

17. Because its stupid to do so.

First, its not our place to tell other countries who their leaders should be. That's the kind of idiotic thinking that causes the right wing to invade Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Second, the people who decide a country's leadership, should be the people of that country. The people of Egypt are making their voices heard. And it is their voices that should count.

Last, the only time we should get involved in "regime change" is under the most serious of atrocities. In many of these countries, there are no "good guys" because the factions have been trying to exterminate each other for over a century. About the best we can do is try and deal with the existing leadership of such countries in a fashion that promotes human rights.

The more involved we get, the easier it is for the right wing to take a situation like this one, send OUR military in, and install some new asshole leadership.

Obama needs to keep an even line on this mess. We have no idea where it is going. And it isn't our job to push it anywhere it doesn't already want to go.

[Ken Burch]

20. We've called on Gbagbo to step down in Ivory Coast...if that's acceptable

why not wouldn't THIS be?

[Davis_X_Machina]

47. UN and OAU want him out...

...there we're working in concert with the relevant regional multilateral organizations.

We're being good world citizens, not big-footing around, in other words.

[JoePhilly]

60. Thanks for getting this ...

The strife in the Ivory Coast is far more like and internal genocide. And the US and the UN and others are working together on what to do to stabilize that situation. The Ivory Coast isn't a ME power who could shift the balance of military power.

That is not the case in Egypt. Its not our place to dive in and "fix it".

Much smarter to give the Egyption people some space to move forward as they see fit, while also cautioning the current government to "stand down" from a military perspective.

[EFerrari]

37. The administration had no problem telling Zelaya to stay out of Honduras

or Aristide to stay out of Haiti.

[Davis_X_Machina]

50. OAS backed both of those up.

We don't act unilaterally unless there's oil involved.

[EFerrari]

58. OAS is not an independent body. n/t

[JoePhilly]

68. US again was in line with the UN.

[EFerrari]

73. Nope. Rice had the gavel in the Security Council

and she denied any time to an open debate.

[barbiegeek]

88. +10000

[bluestateguy]

27. You know that expression, "it isn't always about you"?

That would be applicable here for the United States.

It isn't always about us.

It amazes me that even many liberal Americans feel this need to have their country stick its nose in everybody's business.

[Ken Burch]

32. The point is to make it clear that we AREN'T sticking our noses in.

By being vague, we are leaving the impression with the people of Egypt that we could STILL send the troops in from the Sinai to save the old bastard.

[Liberal Veteran]

38. I fail to see how calling on Mubarak to resign would qualify as "not sticking our noses in".

By definition, it would be sticking our noses in.

[Davis_X_Machina]

51. All 600 of them, including the dental detachment. n/t

[SidDithers]

33. +1...nt

Sid

[JI7]

30. it just seems like this is some theater show to you

[Ken Burch]

35. No....it's history....

For once, this country needs to be on the CORRECT side of it...

At a bare minimum, Obama could pull the troops out of the Sinai...there's no excuse for them being there at all.

[Swede]

36. It would be a mistake for him to do so.

Let Egypt take care of Egypt.

[rury]

43. President Obama has already said it's up to the

Egyptian people and he has called on Mubarak to correct course by making political and economic reforms.
That's all he needs to say.

[grahamhgreen]

52. It's a freakin NO BRAINER. The game is up. GTFO. Everyone knows what the US equivocating means.

[cynatnite]

55. I think he's right not to say it...

The situation is a delicate one and I expect Obama to tread carefully. I don't want him spouting off a feel-good comment.

I want a measured and throughtful response. I want him to consider the treaty with Israel, the Suez Canal, and the rest of the Middle East when he and the rest of the administration comments.

[truedelphi]

57. Sounds like something he would never do in a million years.

As the leader of this nation's kleptocracy, why would he want another kleptocratic leader to be brought down by a people's movement?

[grahamhgreen]

65. One puppet can not stand up to another puppet without the puppeteer pulling the strings

[Modern_Matthew]

64. Not needed...

The millions of people actually under his rule, defying his moot curfews and violent security forces are good enough to call for his resignation.

[cynatnite]

69. Agreed...

Welcome to DU :hi:

[DCKit]

74. Unrec. It may be the right thing to to, but it's far from diplomatic.

We are not a member of the Justice League... yet.

[justiceischeap]

75. I remember a time on DU when everyone was PISSED that Bush had the audacity to invade Iraq

And try to tell that country how it should be run. Thread after thread of how we have no business getting involved... Oh well.

[Ken Burch]

77. Calling on a tyrant to resign is nothing like invading Iraq.

And the main point of making the statement would be to reassure the Egyptian people that we won't try to save Mubarak.

[justiceischeap]

79. And if Mubarak somehow actually holds on to his power?

What do we tell our ally (whether you believe he should be an ally or not is irrelevant) then? "Oops, my bad!"

And what part of he should make a "peaceful transition" doesn't smack of us telling him to step down?

And IMO, it is the same. They are two things we should not do/have done. If previous administrations hadn't gotten us into nation building, we wouldn't be in this sticky situation anyway. We can't just ride roughshod over any country we want. That's what got us into this mess in the first place (and 2 wars in the Middle East that are bleeding our economy dry).

It is not our place to tell other countries how to govern themselves. Full stop.

[sofa king]

80. We need to slide as many of our citizens as we can out of there, first.

We have to be cognizant that any perceived interference is sure to provoke a disproportionate reaction from the other side, no matter which way we lean. So backing a side necessarily has to wait for the more practical matter of ensuring the safety of the large number of Americans who are there.

Ideally, the Arab nations, perhaps through the Arab League, will offer support for free and fair elections, and we can get behind that without having to put ourselves out there as the ones with the bright idea.

But at this point, all previous meddlers in Egypt, including the US, Israel, Turkey, Russia, Britain, and France need to stay the hell out. They don't have a rosy memory of any of us, so we need to carefully pick the moment when we can approach them as friends and equals.

[justiceischeap]

81. Agreed, though sadly, we may never be able to approach them as friends and equals

I may not know a lot about our Middle Eastern affairs but one thing I'm learning is they have a very long memory and hold grudges. The whole reason 9/11 happened was because of our meddling in the ME (and Osama is one sick puppy). Let us not forget that bin Laden's main goal, the terrorism he really wants to bring to the US is economic ruin... and I'd say he's doing pretty well on that score.

That said, I expect harsher language from the US come Tuesday. Why Tuesday? Well, if Mubarak hasn't stepped down by then, Tuesday we should all of our people out of Egypt.

[Ignis]

84. So a speech is morally equivalent to invading a sovreign nation?

Ooooooookay.

:freak:

[customerserviceguy]

82. We could create an instantaneous power vacuum

Or we could try to manage the situation a bit more delicately, to make sure that Islamic extremists don't take over, which would turn the Middle East into a rapidly ticking time bomb.

I'm in favor of caution.

[Obamanaut]

85. Mubarak will end up in the US. There will be a closed door meeting in the WH, followed

by a photo op on the lawn.

Shortly thereafter Mubarak will be delivered a billion dollars and a new Gulfstream, with an apology for making him come all the way to the US.

After that, business as usual.

[sufrommich]

92. Mubarak will not end up in the US. Nor will we give him a

billion dollars and a Gulfstream.

[Obamanaut]

95. As the character in "Roadhouse" said, "Opinions vary." nt

[ecstatic]

86. and, if he did and Mubarak did not resign... then what?

War? A CIA sponsored assassination? :shrug:

Enlighten us, genius!

[barbiegeek]

87. No, he should stay out of it!!!!

[Catherina]

89. He will soon enough. . After Mubarak has already stepped down and is safe in Dubai. Rec'd n/t

[sabrina 1]

93. Rec'd. The Dictator V The People!

It really isn't that hard ~ assuming you are a decent and intelligent human being.

[barbiegeek]

94. After IRAQ, we should just STFU

[blindpig]

96. Mubarak is an asset they'd hate to lose.

Hard to find toadies like that guy and even harder in their wake. His departure will definitely reduce US influence in the region. He won't have Israel's back anymore either, and that's got to be a good thing.

[L. Coyote]

97. Stay out of Egypt's business Mr. President, don't be a fool.