White House waffling on timing of Mubarak exit confirmed

From NPR liveblog of today's WH briefing:

Update at 2 p.m. ET: Pressed again about whether the administration's position that the "transition" must happen "now" means that Mubarak must leave office now, rather than after elections in September, Gibbs says "I'm not going to get into more specifics about what the two presidents talked about."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/02/13343776...

Get it? They're still waffling on the central demand of the democratic forces, which is that Mubarak must leave NOW, not in September.

And I presume the reason Obama is hiding from the press is because he doesn't want to have to answer the simple question: Do you support the demand that Mubarak leave now.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/white-house-eg...

Obama needs to make a clear statement that he supports the demand of the protesters that Mubarak leave NOW.

He needs to do this NOW.

If the U.S. tries to give HM an ultimatum he simply says back "fuck off".

Then what?

It would get real ugly for the citizens of Egypt and the entire region real fast. And, we would be seen as the cause of the mass chaos.

In fact, I believe the people of Egypt will do what is needed anyway.

It's just there will be less bloodshed if the President of the country that backs and funds the Mubarak regime made it clear that Mubarak must leave NOW.

It would also give the U.S a bigger role in what happens next.

If you want to see how Obama's refusal to back the protesters is playing out with Egyptians and others, feel free to peruse the twitter stream on it:

http://twitter.com/#!/search/%23jan25%20obama

institutions (thus the people) when they want to. This is a complex and extremely difficult dance. Diplomacy has to play this out - not one-sided demands by our President. Its all about the balance when it comes to transition.

For 30 years, the U.S backed this client thug, but when a popular uprising demands he leave, then it's time for neutrality and careful diplomacy.

Is the hypocrisy here not rather evident?

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

time after time. First we make sure they have at least some of our fine military weaponary, then when they turn on us, we bomb, kill, and attempt to destroy them. Makes no sense...

You're contradicting yourself.

What gets me mad is the criticsm Obama is getting from the right.

The really far-right folks are criticizing Obama for not helping to prop up Mubarak.

They have even accused him of working with the Muslim Brotherhood to set up a new Caliphate. And, hey,that kinda makes sense, given that Obama is (clearly) a Kenyan-born secret Muslim who wants to impose communism/fascism/Naziism on America through universal health care and a conspiracy that somehow involves Bill Ayers, Francis Fox Piven and the Valois Restaurant on S. 53rd St. in Chicago. :crazy:

Waffling means going back and forth between two positions.

Not talking about specifics does not even have two positions between which to waffle.

No one has any idea of the scope of what is being talked about, who in the world is being talked to - and people are so used to 30 sec soundbites, that they want the whole complicated mess to be put into once sentence.

Good grief.

That way he could start today to make a statement about when Mubarak ought to leave office, but not have to complete his statement until, oh, September, or maybe even a few years from now.

Would that not be acceptable to everyone? That way they could read it any way they wanted, and isn't that being appropriately Democratic?

and untill Wikileaks leaks it we don't know what has and will be said in private to Mubarak and the Egyptian Army. Obama may already have made that known, or maybe not. But even a blogger like me with no security clearance whatsoever understands that sometimes it is more effective to NOT say everything in public. Has it occurred to you that giving Mubarak some face saving public ambiguity might be more effective at getting him to leave very soon, by letting him claimthat he is doing so for the good of his people, and not because his American masters demanded it?

I'm musing about what is the most effective thing the U.S. government can do to actually get him out, rather than what would make us happiest to hear spoken. Leaks will finally reveal to us after the fact what is being kept private from us now. Then I can cast judgement on Obama on this one.

communication between two Presidents." I hear no waffle here at all. What I hear is "I cannot comment on this."

I must say you seem determined to portray Obama in a bad light on this, going to great lengths to put words into his mouth and put your own (worst) interpretation on everything he says. You have no idea what Obama has been telling Mubarak privately and it is naive to think that Obama should be revealing all of the details of his conversations with Mubarak. He does that and he loses any influence he might have, which isn't as much as you think it is. You seem to assume that Mubarak is going to listen to Obama when it is clear that Mubarak listens only to himself.

By refusing to clearly back the protesters demands last night, Obama energized Mubarak and his thugs, and is losing whatever influence he might have had over the popular uprising, and what happens next.

Sorry, but I honestly think this is a foreign policy fuck up of enormous consequence, and the main problem is Obama's bungling.

Unless he pulls himself together on this, it's going to hurt him badly. I wish it was not so.

What he needs to do now isn't complicated: he needs to state unequivocally that Mubarak must leave NOW, not nine months from now.

Think what you want, but there is a reason why Obama is President and you are not. Think about that.
I choose to trust his judgment rather than yours. I think he has a tad more information and understanding of the situation than you do. And I am sorry - I don't think you are being honest. I think you have an anti-Obama agenda here. The crocodile tears ("I wish it was not so") are not convincing.

I don't think I'm inordinately anti-Obama, at least by traditional DU and liberal standards.

Listen to yourself, already.

Anyway, it's not a question of how anti-Obama you are or aren't. It's a question of intellectual honesty and logical fallacies. You are using strawman arguments and unwarranted speculation to create an Obama cartoon that does not reflect the reality of the situation and then clucking about how distraught it makes you. I don't know why you are doing it and really don't care. I am just not going to let you get away with it.

Which part of the NOW don't you get?

"Now" is the time for "transition" to begin.

WTF is "transition?" Does that mean, in keeping with the demand of the protesters, Mubarak should leave now?

Gibbs: Well, ah, moving right along, lets not get too specific.

What part of that refusal to back the demands of the protesters don't you understand?

I'm sure we'd be cheered across the Muslim world for doing so!!!

:sarcasm:

yes or no.

The rest is details. They can sort it out.

He isn't leading the Egyptian revolution.

It's expected. We see it daily.

it just seemed to get me today reading all this about how Obama is now responsible for all of this.

"Gibbs says he will not give details of the phonecall. Why that means Obama secretly supports Mubarek!"

I just alerted, Enough already

did you accidentally post in the wrong forum again?

It's Obama's responsibility! :sarcasm:

And he better be saying what anonymous internet posters write for him (rather than his speechwriters or himself)! :rofl:

Notice that nobody cared about Egypt this time last year.

confirmation at all.

It doesn't logically follow.

Obama Statement yesterday was transition needed to start now.

Is that sophisticated and diplomatic enough strategy?

Just wondering.

- B

doubt that three Israeli airplanes arrived at Cairo Airport with crowd control

equipment without Obama knowing that was going to happen!!

control equipment". The last time someone posted that it was quickly debunked and locked.

article exist. "The International Network for Rights and Development" cannot be found on the internet other than as a source for this disinformation. Try doing some homework before taking what you read at face value.

Certainly there are NGO groups active in ME --

We'll have to wait and see if this is true or not --

but certainly Israel is not innocent of weapons making

or weapons shipping -- Egypt is loaded with tanks,

tear gas and bullets clearly labelled "Made in US" --

so what is it you're trying to deny?

Meanwhile, US and Israeli weapons production is so closely

intertwined that "you can barely tell the difference between them" -- !!

Your position makes no sense whatsoever unless your only agenda is to diss the president (a man I'm not overly fond of myself).

Put up or shut up.

Sid