In U.S. Signals to Egypt, Obama Straddled a Rift (NYT)

[Inuca]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/middleeast/13diplomacy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Mr. Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Wisner’s 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.

Seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo, the president “made it clear that this was not the message we should be delivering,” said one official who was present. He told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take a hard line with his Egyptian counterpart, and he pushed Senator John Kerry to counter the message from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wisner when he appeared on a Sunday talk show the next day.

have a look at the whole article. Interesting stuff... how much fact and how much speculation, I have no idea.

[Mass]

1. I had read the first part (rift) earlier this week in the LA Times

I dont have the link anymore, but it said that there were two lines in the administration, a hard one with Gates and Clinton and a more pro-democracy with Samantha Powells and somebody else (cant remember whom).
I was
I noticed that, during MTP, Kerry said very strongly that Wisner did not represent Obama when he said Mubarak should stay. I was surprised because he really pushed back very hard. I doubt he would have said that without Obama's asking.

[karynnj]

2. The other one mentioned in the LA times was Ben Rhodes, the man who wrote the Cairo speech

Here is the link - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-team-20110210,0,5447678,full.story

Kerry was extremely forceful in countering that the administration's position was not clear - saying it was crystal clear from day one and saying that Wizner was speaking for himself. He sounded like an insider saying that. (It is disturbing that State thought they could go that far from Obama's position. ) He also did a very nice job using HRC's speech to try to suggest the administration was more coherent than it was and on one page.

My view of the NYT article is that it was what many of us thought was happening. One thing I see is that Kerry was consistent (and crystal clear) from day one, but the administration really wasn't. I think Obama personally took about the same position Kerry did - later and in weaker words. This might be because he was President. This perception also comes from the perception that he did not set out a position that Biden and Clinton felt they had to follow. (The big loser in the NYT and in the comments I heard this morning was Clinton. Who was on the wrong side of history. )

[MBS]

3. TOTALLY believable to me

Over the weekend, ON BBC/NPR, I'd heard a replay of Hillary Clinton's remarks on Egypt . SInce I'd been exceptionally busy the last two weeks, this was the first time I'd heard that speech first-hand . Even knowing the content from the news, I was shocked by the disconnect with later events (yeah,by how much she was on the "wrong side of history"). .a feeling magnified by BBC's replaying those remarks explicitly in the context of Mubarak's later resignation and the whole series of stunning events this week.

Then, last night, I was cleaning out old magazines, , and found this New Yorker piece by Hendrik Hertzberg, which brought back a lot of old familiar feelings. .
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/02/11/080211taco_talk_hertzberg

[Inuca]

4. OT: busy is good (sometimes) :-) n/t