President Obama: Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't

[justiceischeap]

I've been thinking about certain attitudes, worldwide, about the Obama administrations stance on Egypt. For years, people complained that Bush put his nose where it didn't belong, bullied too many people with lies, violence and slowly eroding our rights, and the worlds. Now we have President Obama, who can't seem to make anyone happy about anything--particularly in respect to what's going on in Egypt. I for one am glad we have a President who is allowing a country to decide their own fate, not demanding forcibly something one or the other. He is using "soft" language to say what his administration feels should be done in Egypt; that he should peacefully transition to a government that the people want. The administration is using nuance in this situation to say what they feel--it's time for Mubarak to go. It has changed, as the situation has changed.

Bush bullied our way across the Middle East and Obama is slowly gaining the United States' respect back in foreign nations by NOT telling them what to do but for some that isn't enough, some want him to pick up the bully stick and hit the Egyptian government over the head and destroy any good will he has created for us worldwide. I also understand it is in the United States' best interests to navigate smartly and softly through this uprising. Like it or not, for years longer than he has been President, our government has entwined itself in the Middle East by being an ally to Israel. Like it or not, we have needed Egypt's support in keeping that little swath of the Middle East as calm as possible. I think the way this administration is handling things gains the respect, in the long run, of Muslim's--whom the US obviously has issues with because of our heavy handedness in past years (and still have because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan). There are so many balls in the air that this administration has juggle and I think our President and his administration is doing the best they can with a horrible situation they've inherited.

*puts soapbox away*

[mzteris]

1. It doesn't matter what he does or does not do

to some people.

I have my own opinion as to why no matter what he does, it will *never* ever be good enough for "some people".

[Enrique]

2. he's actually getting tons of support

I'm hearing a lot of people say he's handling a difficult situation well.

[Better Believe It]

3. So who exactly will damn Obama if he opposes dictatorships and supports pro-democracy movements?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Since you asked:

the right-wing teabagger types- though they comprise a large percentage of the people whom will hate and oppose President Obama no matter what.

[Better Believe It]

9. Exactly. So screw them!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Exactly!

n/t

[WingDinger]

21. Aint about teabaggers. It is about our ally system, and it's legitimacy.

You DO NOT want to get all nasty at who might gain control. Nor be gossip blamed for throwing the vote. We have no choice but NOT to choose. The Egyptian people are the only ones that have earned that right.

[justiceischeap]

7. I'd guess the people in the Middle East and worldwide

who think the US gets involved in too many things that aren't really for us to get involved in and as I stated in my OP, that started long before he became President. I don't doubt that there are some people in Egypt who think Mubarak is just fine (I'm not saying they're right). I just think the US has had a policy, for too long, of trying to influence situations that we really shouldn't be involved in. You don't see anyone going after, say, Switzerland. That's cause they focus on themselves.

[WingDinger]

17. All our less than perfect allies, that will question the loyalty under fire, of any of them.

The US, however unsavory, must TRY, to maintain the current status quo, at least officially, or support any other winner. Until there is another winner, we cannot ENCOURAGE one way or the other. THAT, can only come to scrutiny. We must support all efforts at democracy. Whether by Mubarek, or any winning regime. If we cast our lot with Mubarek, and he goes, so does our prestige. We MUST learn to work with whatever the people of Egypt decide. There is no other path.

BUT, that path is unclear as of yet. So having our pres stand up in either's favor can come to no good.

[Radical Activist]

23. You, obviously, because he's already doing that

and you still find ways to attack him for it. You already proved the point.

[ananda]

29. Okay, I'll play the angel's advocate.

Everywhere but here.

What about here? I'm tired of Obama playing the corporate stooge
and siding with corps and Reeps on important issues that affect people so
adversely.

[upi402]

4. I think he damned his own self when he 'didn't'

and he went about biting the hands that fed him.

[notesdev]

6. The attitude is totally wrong

It's not our place to tell the people of Egypt how to run their affairs, so the concept of "allowing" them to be free is repugnant on its face. What is really happening now is that America's flaccidity and weakness is being exposed. It really doesn't matter what we think, Egypt will determine its own destiny as self-evidently is its right.

If Obama has established any theme to his term to date, it is "preservation of the status quo". Well, the status quo in this case was a dictator supported by the US to the tune of >$1B/yr.

If the admin was credible at all it would be reviewing a globe's worth of this kind of policy. Instead we get nothing but contradictory and vague statements by high admin officials, because there is no worthy principle behind our policies, only raw power interest.

If the admin wants to distinguish itself from that, it would do them well to discover, articulate, and behave consistent with worthy principles for dealing fairly with other nations - and fairly to the American people in the process.

[tekisui]

8. Well said.

[Better Believe It]

13. When we oppose dictators and support popular movements to overthrow them that is not direct gov't

interference in the right of people to determine their own destiny.

[notesdev]

15. Yeah but we don't do that

we support the dictator until it's a fait accompli that he's being thrown out, then we try to get another dictator installed.

[Better Believe It]

16. That's because America's ruling rich support dictators and many wish for a similiar system here.

[WingDinger]

18. Our days of hand picking leaders is over. Especially there. The british screwed us eternally.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Simply asking Mubarak to step down could transform our image in the middle east...

Let's hope he doesn't equivocate this chance away like he did the public option and taxes on the rich.

[Bluebear]

11. I know, poor guy.

:crazy:

[underpants]

12. At least you are in reality. Most MURKANS aren't because the press hammers Obama for everything

the lily white top of the US media didn't know how to deal with the black guy during the campaign. Fox News settled on Rev.Wright and that was one step away so the rest of the media followed.

Now - the corporate boys aren't sure how to deal with any change (so much for the fancy degrees) so their country club buddies make everything about Obama negative. Any positives (remember the SEALS popping the pirates?) is never mentioned.

He is doing fine. Not great. He is making huge shifts that the 24 hour news cycle and hate radio can't explain in 10 seconds so they are complaining about the candles going out when the cake gets moved.

[justiceischeap]

19. a hypothetical

Let's say the US govt, no matter who is in power, gets rid of all dictators previous administrations have installed and/or supported. What does that do to the world? It could very well destabilize the world. What then becomes of the American President who does that? He gains our respect, and then we become a target for every unhappy person in the world.

I just think that too many people look at foreign politics in a narrowed view of what they would do personally.

[Hydra]

22. We can't get rid of our own dictators

We want to put new ones in after. That doesn't work.

What we CAN do is stop cycle, and we can stop by dropping your premise- that we are holding the world together.

We aren't. We're killing people for oil. Learn the difference.

[justiceischeap]

24. And one could argue that if the overwhelming majority of Americans

weren't whores for oil, we could get out of this situation. I know the difference between holding the world together and killing for oil and doing things that aren't nice but sometimes necessary. Sometimes governments have to do things most of us don't agree with to keep from getting our ass handed to us.

Is there any indication in this situation that the US is trying to install another dictator? We have said that it's not in our best interests for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over and that's true--it isn't in the best interest of the US to have Muslim's who hate us, who hate Israel, who have extreme beliefs to be in charge. Just like it's not in our best interest for the Theofascists in the US to be in charge.

[Hydra]

28. Why are we getting our asses handed to us?

And we did try to install another dictator- Mubarak's pick for VP was the head of rendition operations for us since 1993 and is the head of their Intel/Torture dept.

ElBaradei will do a perfectly fine job, except he won't torture people for us or hold the border while Israel kills people in the West Bank. Too bad, huh?

[Hydra]

20. Wrong premise

President Obama is having trouble tightrope walking because he is trying to serve two masters, or at least APPEAR to serve 2.

On the one side, He has the big money imperialists. Already the reports are coming out that a democratic Egypt is bad news for Corporations, and without a strong-arm in Cairo, they can't exert the kind of pressure needed to rob the Palestinians of all their land for Israel.

The other side he has the people who elected him, and the public image in the world that we are a rule of law democracy. He has to make it look like he cares about those things while keeping the people above happy.

That's why they tried to keep Mubarak in power until things "settle down." When that didn't work, they had him appoint someone they could control. That also failed. After all of that, he said something we approve of: It's over, and Mubarak and his goons are leaving.

That wasn't something he wanted to do, and he's not damned if he does or damned if he doesn't with us- he just has to decide who he wants to get yelled at by: The Left, or Big Money.

[justiceischeap]

25. You don't know, any more than I know, that any of this is something he wanted to do

for big business. He may have wanted to keep the dictator in there because it keeps our country safer.

Neither of us can say why any politician does what he does. We can spout a cynical opinion about what we THINK is going on but that doesn't make it any more true than claiming global warming is fake because it's cold outside.

[Hydra]

26. Again, bad argument

The fact that it's cold outside DOES support Global Warming, or as I prefer to call it, climate change.

And your idea that we can't possibly know what's going on is silly, and dangerous. That was the kind of thinking the kept the Good Germans silent.

We know Mubarak is a dictator who tortures. He doesn't make America more safe, he gets us what we want. From the fact that Obama supports such a person monetarily and with PR says that he's not too concerned about that fact as long as profits are flowing, since freedom and safety obviously isn't.

Now, to claim that we should support this because we don't know what the President knows is to support war crimes. The Safety of the "Homeland" does not justify that.

[Major Hogwash]

27. I agree and I think the Tea Party will make this a problem for Democrats next year.

And accuse Obama of not supporting our allies.
They'll say, "who's next? Israel?"

You'll see.
Whatever Obama does, they will say he should have done the opposite.