Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Obama went against Clinton, Gates and Biden

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 11:48 AM
Original message
NYT: Obama went against Clinton, Gates and Biden
WASHINGTON Last Saturday afternoon, President Obama got a jarring update from his national security team: With restive crowds of young Egyptians demanding President Hosni Mubaraks immediate resignation, Frank G. Wisner, Mr. Obamas envoy to Cairo, had just told a Munich conference that Mr. Mubarak was indispensable to Egypts democratic transition.

Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisners key backer, was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away.

In fact, some of the differences in approach stemmed from the institutional biases of the State Department versus those of the White House. The diplomats at the State Department view the Egyptian crisis through the lens of American strategic interests in the region, its threat to the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel, and its effects on the Middle East peace process.

snip

Back in Washington, though, Mr. Obama was moving quickly to counteract the comments in Munich.

The White House recruited Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who appeared on the NBC News program Meet the Press and declared that Mr. Wisners comments just dont reflect where the administration has been from day one.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Kerry played down the administrations mixed messages. A little confusion came out of Munich, he said. Apart from that, they calibrated it appropriately, to try to give the process room without making it an American process.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/middleeast/13di...

Booman:

Hillary Clinton was Frank Wisner Jr.'s main backer? I knew something stunk about sending Wisner because it didn't seem like something Obama would do based on Wisner Sr.'s record. I thought it was unlikely, but possible, that Wisner Sr.'s role in installing the Shah in Iran had escaped Obama's memory banks and I was quite shocked to see such a horrible message sent to Cairo and the Islamic world. It turns out that Clinton suggested him and that he didn't go there to send the president's message but a message of support from those who made a buck or two off our relationship with Mubarak. "Hang in there, buddy, you're indispensable."

So, the president flipped his lid and called up his buddy John Kerry to tell him to contradict that bullshit when he went on Meet the Press.

Meanwhile, he told Mubarak to get the fuck out, even as Clinton, Biden, and Gates tried to get him to side with the PermaGov.

You want to know why I was so passionate that Obama, and not Clinton, be the Democratic nominee? It wasn't for health care reform. It was for decisions like this.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm proud of our President.
He totally rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wow, that is awesome. Were they trying to force Obama to back
Mubarak, I wonder. Well, if so, it didn't work. Obama backed the protesters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO USE CRUSIE MISSELS!1!!!1!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. I want immediate truffle exploration. I'm sure there are truffles
Edited on Sun Feb-13-11 04:15 PM by DevonRex
under all that sand.



Happy Valentine's Day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. PRIVATE SCHOOL ROSE IN MY FACE!!!11 THX!1!!
Edited on Sun Feb-13-11 05:46 PM by dionysus
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's too pro-Mubarik for some and too pro-protestors for others
Help me out here. Help walk me through this. I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. it sounds like a lot of supposition to me
revisionism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. yeah he's really worse than Hitler.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Totally. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Like supposition isn't all that we normally get here at DU!
The point is that DU speculates constantly as to what the President is "about" to do,
and based on those supposition, they react, and get mad and shit.
So the NYT writes an article after the fact, meaning that it couldn't be all that speculative,
and what do we get? Folks deciding not to believe any of it; folks that normally would,
if only what was being written put Obama in a nefarious and negative light. Typical! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. It supports what DU thought looking at the statements
from the various people - and the LA Times article had the same information in less detail - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-oba...

The important thing is that Obama managed to convey support for the youth, which is consistent with our values and sides with the future. That and the echoes of his excellent Cairo speech have led to there being little anti-American sentiment - which could have happened (and often has in the past) given our support of a repressive dictator.

Another person who comes out very well in this is John Kerry, whose public and private comments (as was seen by wikileaks) are the same was excellent in his PR, his op-ed, and his MTP segment. The MTP segment was helpful in separating Obama from Wizner and even mentioning Hillary's call for reform at Doha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Azathoth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. You have to ask yourself: "Do I have a seething, wild-eyed hatred for Obama?"
If you do, then just accuse him of anything. Say he's too pro-Mubarak, say he's too pro-protesters, say he's too pro-Klingon Empire, say whatever. Rationality, reasonableness, and practicality aren't important considerations here; in fact, they are your enemies. Instead, you need to make sure that you don't miss an opportunity to rant and rave and sarcastically attack the guy. Every new development should be proof that he's a failure, a sellout, a traitor, or worse. If the situation eventually reaches a positive resolution, immediately claim that he had absolutely nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, the situation ends in disaster, make sure you let everyone know that he was completely, totally, and singularly responsible for it. Then rinse and repeat with the next news story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. This is the best post on the thread! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
52. You nailed it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
62. My heavens, this is an incredible post...
I wish it could have a thread of it's own.

Bravo Azathoth, well done! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
64. Excellent post.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
66. Or you can ask yourself, "Do I follow Democratic leaders regardless if they sell out to
the major corporations, and renege on promises?" Not allowing skepticism and following leaders in lock step are republican traits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
74. +2 million billion. It's so transparent, it's almost humorous, isn't it??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. Can't help. Remember he was too Black for White people and too White for Black people.
He's living the life always on the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow, if this is true President Obama deserves a ton of credit...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. If it is true
then I am waiting to see some resignations to show that he is the one in charge and will not tolerate behavior of this kind. If not it may be that this was all a good cop/bad cop strategy. I would love to know for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Fire who? HRC? Biden? and Gates?! Get real!!!
That would show that he has a whole slew of people undermining his authority---and majority of those people are key figures in the cabinet. Unlikely. That will make him appear super weak in the eyes of the people who think he's weak and illegitimate as a President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. I don't think there is anyone - other than Wisner, who would be asked to resign
On any issue the people in Obama's cabinet will be ASKED by him for their opinions - and he will disagree with some of them almost always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
49. Is that how you manage? Immediately throw your subordinates under the bus for making a mistake? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. The thing that amuses me is that the same people who have constantly
argued for the past two years that Obama is playing multidimensional chess don't even recognize it when it is played right in front of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Seriously. Obama roped the pundit and media dopes once again.
Beep beep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
59. Obama was brilliant. I'm in Thailand and they were looking to Obama for his statements. People here
seem to think he handled it brilliantly and were surprised by the criticism coming from the U.S. media. It's always hard explaining Obama Derangement Syndrome to people in other countries. Even ones in countries that are having the kind of turmoil they are here in Thailand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. I am reading a great book right...
now about wingnuttery on both the right AND the left. It talks about Obama Derangement Syndrome. You have hit the nail on the head!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
75. "It's always hard explaining Obama Derangement Syndrome to people in other countries."
Oh God, ain't THAT the damn truth!!!

I have completely stopped showing my Australian husband some of the comments here about the President. I had to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Isn't that the truth. I don't even bother bringing up the more
complicated ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Looks like that chess is working out well
"Egypt's New Military Rulers To Ban Unions, Strikes" http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/13-1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. So now you think that he was wrong to back the protesters? Heee. Spin it away.
Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moral_Imagination Donating Member (161 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. Its possible that the entire thing is coordinated
Obama looks good for standing up to the "establishment" foreign policy position. Hilary is covered either way for 2016... If Egypt does fall apart somehow she can point back to this. If it doesn't no one will remember this tactical difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diamonique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. Just wanted to see this again:
"It wasn't for health care reform. It was for decisions like this."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. NYT doesn't really support Booman's criticism of Clinton:
"Mrs. Clintons message, officials said, was conflated later with Mr. Wisners. Administration officials insist that Mr. Obama was angered by Mr. Wisners remarks, not by Mrs. Clintons."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. You have cherry picked a comment that, in context, is saying just that
it was Wisner who was by far the worst, but the article makes clear that Clinton was pushing back on the idea od pushing Mubarak to step down - and she selected Wisner to give the US message to Egypt.

In the best interpretation, she was not all that helpful here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. BS:
"the article makes clear that Clinton was pushing back on the idea od pushing Mubarak to step down"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
54. Sorry for my rudeness. But I respectfully disagree.
Clinton wasn't opposed to Mubaraks stepping down: " . . . during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 29, officials said, Mrs. Clinton pushed for the administration to adopt language that would clearly lay the groundwork for Mr. Mubaraks departure."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. anonymous sources are GREAT when they make Obama look good
this article is based 100% on anonymous Obama officials who paint a very favorable picture of Obama's actions.

I think it's a good article and I believe it to some extent, but you know, there's a good amount of hypocrisy at DU in its supposed media criticism. If it's anti-Obama, everyone's all media savvy, but if it's pro-Obama, then the NYT, Politico, or whoever are treated as "the truth".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. and yet if it was an anonymously sourced article critical of Obama
many here would be claiming IT was the gospel truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Who is this Booman idiot?
Did Clinton try to get Obama "to side with the PermaGov," as Booman claims? I don't see anything in the NYT article that suggests that Obama went against Clinton's policy recommendations. According to that article, Obama "was not in disagreement with the positions of Mr. Wisner and Mrs. Clinton about how long transition would take."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. The authors of the story clearly did - as they speak of a rift - where Obama ended up taking the
opposite side. The op contains the article - so any one can read it and reach their own conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. Booman link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. thx for the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. Obama was at his best during this crisis, and he
supported a peaceful transition. He did that well. He comes out clean are far as I am concerned. And I am NOT a big Obama fan as some of you know.

Was there some hypocrisy in suddenly supporting Democracy on the part of the US? Sure. Was there some backroom deal between the US and the Egyptian military and the US government. Probably. But considering the situation, Obama did not embarrass or gain the wrath of anyone except the undemocratic Republicans who will do anything to ensure Obama fails.

Peace,
Tex Shelters


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sky Masterson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. F.U. Sarah Palin!
He handled the 3:00 am phone call just fine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonCoquixote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
25. but but
"Last Saturday afternoon, President Obama got a jarring update from his national security team: With restive crowds of young Egyptians demanding President Hosni Mubaraks immediate resignation, Frank G. Wisner, Mr. Obamas envoy to Cairo, had just told a Munich conference that Mr. Mubarak was indispensable to Egypts democratic transition.

Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisners key backer, was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away. "

But but, the people who still slam Obama, who say that she is just following his orders, who talk as if Hillary would have been more liberal than FDR if we only crowned her Queen, this won't factor into things, which means it will never be acknowledged by them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Try reading. Obama agreed with Clinton
that transition would take time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. I did read it - just take the segment that was posted that you responded to
Obama PUBLICLY, after days of consideration, made a strong speech that said change needed to start NOW. It was not just the NYT that took it that way - everyone from AJE to the US media to DU took it to mean that Obama was on the side of the people - then that Saturday because of Wisner's comments - and the fact that HRC's comments seemed to align with Wisner, the story was that the US had backtracked. Go back and look at Saturday on DU! (Easy to find, use advanced search for a thread with Eqypt with the dates set to get just the weekend.)

Now, Kerry was scheduled to be on MTP before the comments in question - if you doubt it, look at DU JK - we posted it. One sign that JK did speak to Obama before that appearance was that he spoke very authoritatively that the Obama policy was crystal clear and said the Wisner does not speak for them. (Kerry had been VERY clear in interviews back in January that he was speaking just for John Kerry - and his op-ed and comments were more pro-demonstrators than anyone in the administration.) Kerry did not qualify his comments on Obama policy at all on MTP.

The question I have is why does it bother you that in this Obama opted for the path recommended by Rhodes and Powers and (publicly)Kerry rather than the one Clinton was more comfortable with. There are a lot of people around the President and they don't agree on everything. I saw no reason to deny that the President disagreed with Kerry's, Biden's and Reed's opinion on Afghanistan - going with Clinton and Gates on McChrystal's surge. I support Kerry more than anyone else - and I did not see it as negative for him that Obama did not take his advice.

Here, I suspect that you are really having a conflict between your own support of HRC and the fact that you would not have wanted Mubarak/Suliman in power for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. It seems Obama did a terrific job. But Booman seems to be an idiot.
Clinton didn't say that mubarak was a necessary part of a transition. Wisner did. Obama agreed with Clinton remark that a transition would take a lot of time. I am not a big fan of Clinton's foreign policy positions. Like Obama, Clinton is way too militaristic for me. But I don't find evidence of any policy conflict between Clinton and Obama. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. I think we are not in disagreement - Hillary does not = Wisner,
BUT Hillary was one of the people pulling Obama to urge that things go slowly - and Obama opted to follow Rhodes and Powers. There is a difference, but I would say there was a BIGGER difference between Obama and Kerry, who the first day included comments about non-violent protest referencing MLK and Ghandi.

As I said in another post, there are always differences between advisers - and I don't think that every difference rises to the level of a "policy conflict". (To me, a policy conflict would be something that is so big a difference that HRC would not feel comfortable implementing the policy Obama decides on OR so big a difference that Obama is uncomfortable with HRC being a spokesperson. That didn't happen.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disintermedia8 Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
31. Wisner's appointment and his subsequent comments
were the source of a lot of confusion. What truly transpired is now going to remain in the realm of spinmeisters spinning for their respective clients. But as far as I'm concerned, the results speak for themselves. Neither Suleiman nor Mubarak remain and that is a victory. I thought there was a sufficient amount of room left to maneuver. Our armaments were prevented from being used against civilians, (personally, I thought that was the key).

On this major event in world history President Obama led with success. I wholly endorse his actions with regard to Egypt thus far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Nice summary and welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
38. Shit...why are people in his own admin working against him. Fuck this!
I'm getting tired of this. Great news that the President went by his own judgment while those in his cabinet had another agenda all together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
73. Actually doesn't this make you wonder about all the other stuff
We get mad at Obama for. I have wondered for years now if his team is in charge not him, and just maybe he is finally realizing he needs to take control or he wont be around for another 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
45. How convenient to quote only the portion that suited your purposes.
Edited on Sun Feb-13-11 05:09 PM by Beacool
Despite the fervor on the streets of Cairo, and Mr. Obamas occasional tough language, the president always took a pragmatic view of how to use Americas limited influence over change in Egypt. He was not in disagreement with the positions of Mr. Wisner and Mrs. Clinton about how long transition would take. But he apparently feared that saying so openly would reveal that the United States was not in total sync with the protesters, and was indeed putting its strategic interests first. Making that too clear would not only anger the crowds, it could give Mr. Mubarak a reason to cling to power and a pretext to crush the revolution.

-----

Mrs. Clinton and some of her State Department subordinates wanted to move cautiously, and reassure allies they were not being abandoned, in part influenced by daily calls from Israel, Saudi Arabia and others who feared an Egypt without Mr. Mubarak would destabilize the entire region. Some were nervous because they perceived that the United States had been a cheerleader for the Tunisia protesters.

------

For her part, Mrs. Clinton, too, has called for radical change in the Arab world. In January, on a trip to Qatar, she issued a scathing critique of Arab leaders, saying their countries risked sinking into the sand if they did not undertake swift political reforms. She said that stagnant economies and the bulge in the youth population was a recipe for the kind of unrest that later convulsed Tunisia and Egypt. And during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 29, officials said, Mrs. Clinton pushed for the administration to adopt language that would clearly lay the groundwork for Mr. Mubaraks departure.

But she also expressed concern later that a hasty exit of Mr. Mubarak could complicate Egypts transition to democracy given the lack of a political culture there. Added to that, many foreign policy experts still worry that Egyptians are ultimately faced with a choice between the military on one side and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, on the other.

:eyes:

Hillary gave a great speech in Qatar, but of course probably no one here read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metric System Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. Thanks for drawing attention to what the OP left out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
69. No problem...........
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. I never begrudged the adminstration being respectful of Mubarak.
Edited on Mon Feb-14-11 01:19 AM by burning rain
Not even when Biden rejected the label "dictator" as applied to Mubarak. The US needs to retain credibility with its allies, even those who are bums, and you don't accomplish that by rubbishing them in public, even when you'd rather see the back of them. The administration did what it needed to do, in my view, emphasizing that there had better be no violent crackdown on the demonstrators, thereby helping ensure that they had some safety to pursue the peaceful ouster of the Mubarak regime, if they could manage it. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, explicit warnings are discovered to have been made to the US aid-dependent Egyptian military that they would forfeit US assistance in the event they descended on the protestors.

Beyond that, I don't see much of a role for the US, certainly not forcing change where there isn't organic support, as our neocon friends advocate. But to the extent that we can use our good offices to protect organic pro-democracy movements from suppression, I'm all for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
77. Showing Mubarak the door was the first step.
We'll see how the military proceed in the immediate future. Will they become like Mubarak or will they call for a democratic, secular government and hold and election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #45
61. But the bottom line is that if Obama had listened to the advice from Hillary and the others..
Mubarak might still be in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
47. At the critical time when
this uprising was trying to find its legs and when it became clear that Mubarak was being seriously challenged and couldn't put it down without it being a very ugly scene in front of the World, the Obama administration wanted Mubarak to stay in power and implement reforms. That was their policy at the time. When it became clear that it wouldn't work, they changed it to Mubarak stepping down and Suleiman taking power and implementing reforms. Neither of these options were acceptable to the Egyptian people. The Egyptians won out by booting Mubarak and Suleiman both. One person makes that decision and that's the President. All the post event squawking doesn't change that. The President owns the policy or in this case policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Really?
The Obama administration wanted not just reforms, but a transition to democracy. The Obama administration did not push for the sort of transition that the Egyptian people chose, but the Obama administration and the Egyptian people wanted a transition to democracy. (Nor is there any evidence that Clinton or Biden fighting Obama on this.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Really.
The Egyptian people weren't going to leave it up to Mubarak or Suleiman to transition to their democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-13-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. true, and good for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
57. Did Obama know what his envoy
was going to tell Mubarak? Hard to believe he didn't. We're to believe Obama sent Wisner to tell Mubarak to leave but Wisner told him to tough it out? LOL.

I think this was a case where Wisner spilled the beans afterwards and Obama had to find a way to disavow what Wisner told Mubarak. So they leaked this story about him being furious with Wisner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. We don't know what Wisner told Mubarak.
Edited on Mon Feb-14-11 07:24 AM by karynnj
We know that AFTER he met with Mubarak, he said to the Munich meeting last Saturday, that Mubarak had to stay.

Your hypothesis is one possibility, but given Obama's IMMEDIATE negative reaction - as evidenced by his call to Kerry, which had to happen before Kerry spoke on the MTP. (Independent evidence that he had spoken to Kerry is the intensity of Kerry's pronouncement that Wisner was speaking just for himself and stating that it was not Obama policy. I have watched hundreds of Kerry comments since Obama became President - if this were Kerry's opinion, he would have qualified it as being so - as he did in all his other comments on Egypt.

The other possibility is that this career diplomat was chosen because of his history with Mubarak - as someone who could speak frankly to Mubarak and convey the opinion that it might be better for Egypt if he left gracefully. Because he was a career diplomat, it is astonishing that he did what he did. By definition, career diplomats man the embassies in trouble spots - through Democratic and Republican Presidents - in either case implementing US policy as determined by the President. Watching them testify to the SFRC, I can't tell if they are Democrats or Republicans.

What this may say is that Obama sided against not just Gates and Clinton, but against the standard practices of our diplomatic service over the last 3 or 4 decades. If so, this IS a change that I voted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
58. so the spin is: Obama wasn't THAT far out of touch about Egypt, it's just
EVERYONE AROUND HIM was.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
65. This is just spin defending Obama's non-leadership here
I doubt there really was a split. I think Obama was simply less than inspirational in his handling of this matter and deserves the criticism he received last week from ME commentators and experts for refusing to clearly support the main demand of the protesters -- that Mubarak stand down.

Instead, his statements were ambiguous, and the WH spent several days in the heat of the battle parsing the word "now" and "transition." At no point when it mattered did Obama make it clear that Mubarak's resignation was necessary now -- as in immeditatly, not in September -- nor did he ever make it clear that he thought Mubarak should have no role in the "transition."

For anyone following closely, what was clear was that a "transition" that took until September, with Mubarak in charge of the transition, was okay with Obama. I think there is now some retrospective history re-writing going on to make it look otherwise.

Personally, I think Obama was weak during this crisis, which makes me nervous about what to expect of him in future crises. A campaign to blame Hilary for Obama's indecision is just deliberate obfuscation. She may have been on the wrong side of history, but there is no evidence that Obama disagreed with that stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
67. Ding, dong the DLC is dead. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
68. This is EXACTLY why the Likud-loving wingnuts have been spreading that "Obama is a Muslim" crap.
They know that he's not willing to sell out America for any one country... be it Israel or Egypt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
70. sneaky fucking Clintons
he's your boss, big shit, listen up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. Such poise, such class.................
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
71. I'm glad Pres Obama did and thanks to Sen Kerry for setting 'em straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. kick
They have done a nice job on this. :kick: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-14-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
72. I thought the whole thing was handled spectacularly by the prez
That doesn't stop me from thinking his domestic policies are a disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 11th 2014, 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC