Kerry's comment on Mubarak stepping down

Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, today issued a statement following the announcement that President Hosni Mubarak resigned:



“This is an extraordinary moment for Egypt. Courageous and peaceful demands for freedom and opportunity have now won the Egyptian people a chance at a new beginning. Now the hard work intensifies to prepare for free and fair elections that will allow the people to choose a broadly representative and responsive government. Egypt’s army and transitional leaders must heed the call to lift the emergency law and clarify a timetable to establish a proper foundation for credible elections. The United States must help Egyptians turn this democratic moment into a process that builds a government responsive to economic needs as well as demands for freedom. What happens next will have repercussions far beyond Egypt’s borders. We know from recent experience in Gaza that this requires not just elections, but hard work to build a government that is transparent, accountable, and broadly representative.”


From Facebook ( well that's appropriate for a revolution that used it and twitter, but it is not on his web site!) http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/john-kerry/kerry-on-the-resignation-of-president-mubarak/10150144584415879

However, I have a quibble here. If you want free elections, you need to accept the results could not be the ones you expect.

I am sure there are a lot to say about the elections in Gaza (and Lebanon), but there is a lot to say about the elections in Jordan, or in Egypt with the Mubarak regime. I can only agree that having an election does not insure a free and representative government, but I really wished he dropped the reference to Gaza.

Now, he may not mean what I think he does, but, in the context of other elections in the past (like Iran in the 50s and Chile), the way this is formulated is somewhat problematic.

also on his Senate page http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=6b1d3c0b-c6ad-4bf0-8aee-b8a3b26b7c65

I saw it on FB and went to Senate site, preferring that link, and couldn't find it. Boston Herald has it now - http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20110211kerry_mubarak_resignation_opportunity_for_egypt/

The APF includes it with others - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h70pI_loI5D6feG0hzva035_vzug?docId=CNG.e2fe237b1597391d33cc379ecce1f288.221 (only negative is that they tie Kerry's last sentence on elections not being enough in themselves to Ros-Lehtinen's comments on the Muslem Brotherhood)

Bloomberg seems to use the APF, but it is far better written - http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-11/u-s-lawmakers-cheer-mubarak-s-departure-urge-move-to-democracy.html

Politico has an article that first covers Reid and Schumer. Schumer is completely focused on the stability of the Middle East - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49340.html

Here's a central PA article - http://gantdaily.com/2011/02/11/u-s-lawmakers-welcome-mubaraks-resignation/

given his position as chairman of the SFRC and close to Obama and Biden. He is also a respected figure in the Middle East. This is why the words matter more than what Schumer will say.

For all the crap they post, I continue to be surprised how more receptive the Herald is to news like that, contrarily to the Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/02/kerry_mubaraks_1.html


Generally much better than the PR, IMO. Aside from the last part, which, I guess, is part of the mandatory talk in America. If the Egyptians decided to have the Muslim Brotherhood as part as their government through a free election, what stand would we have to oppose that? (and yes, I know that Kerry is far from being one of the worst offender. It is just that this is these types of statements that reinforces the idea abroad that the US wants only Democracy if it is in their interest).

BTW, Kerry is one of those who made great analysis of why Hamas and Hezbollah came to power. He was right then. Hopefully, he will continue to be now.

I didn't interpret the comment on the Moslem Brotherhood as you did. He is speaking of the people who were in the movement that led to Mubarak to step down - and from all accounts I heard, they were not involved. I don't think he was saying anything about who can run in the government - and agree with you that we have no standing to demand anything. (Just as another country could not ask that the US disallow Glenn Beck from running for office. )

His comment on the peace treaty does say cautiously optimistic and he argues it - as he has in Syria's case - that may see it to their own advantage.

Looking at all Kerry's statements - from his PR, to the op-ed to Meet the Press etc, he has been more on target and more consistent than any other leader.

Quaeda. As I said, it is how it is seen abroad (and it is not a surprise that AFP and Reuters picked on these comments on Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood). As I said, I would just hope he dropped these types of comments from his statements.

I agree that he has been more on target than most, and, apart these remarks, I think he is spot on. (and, after having read the comments of the GOPers and some Dems, obviously, Kerry's comments are very mild.)

everything else in that grouping is clearly negative - so that implies that Moslem Brotherhood is the same. (I saw it as debunking the negative thinge said of the protests by the right - and he is correct that they were not there, but the regional and international interpretation is as you say.

I am not a purist, I believe we have to push for leadership that is in our best interest and that of a majority of the Egyptian people. If that means we have to get involved in the process somewhat,I see nothing wrong with it, our guidance and experience could be helpful and prevent the rise of leadership that is hostile to the US and not in the best interests of the Egyptian people. I ask you, do you really believe the protesters understand democracy? And, do you not think they are vulnerable right now to self-serving interests?

I have no clue whether the protesters understand democracy, but you could say the same thing of people in the States or in Europe. Frankly, do we understand democracy when we cant be bothered voting and then complain about the consequences?

democracy that makes Americans complacent and not willing to vote, but more to the point, they don't understand how terrible America would be without it.