Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: The Hypocrisy of the United States
100 views
Skip to first unread message
Mason Barge
Jul 6, 2013, 11:59:04 AM7/6/13
to
This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
to the current administration:
"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on
the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
Harvard Yard and other American temples of the “progressive”
movement."
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
to the current administration:
"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on
the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
Harvard Yard and other American temples of the “progressive”
movement."
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Ubiquitous
Jul 6, 2013, 10:36:42 AM7/6/13
to
mason...@gmail.com wrote:
>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
>to the current administration:
>
>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
>for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on
>the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
Obama is proving himself to be a real-life Forest Gump, a bystander to
>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
>to the current administration:
>
>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
>for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on
>the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
history, to this country's detriment.
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends"
-- Barack "Dear Ruler" Obama
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2013, 12:39:48 AM7/7/13
to
"What makes it simpler is that as long as the army has the dominant role in foreign and security policy, it doesn't matter so much who controls parliament or the president's office," he says.
Several months into Morsy's term, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials told me ties with their Egyptian military counterparts had never been better. Egypt's Army is the beneficiary of Washington's annual $1.6 billion aid package to the country -- money dependent on it playing nice with the Jewish state. Not that there's any love lost between the two, but at least there are shared interest. Egypt's generals have no desire for another costly war with their neighbor, with which they shares an interest in keeping Hamas gunmen ensconced in Gaza rather than terrorizing either country's soldiers or civilians."
"... the choice of a long-term replacement is virtually irrelevant, and that the country's essential conflict is between its only two organized forces: political Islam and the military. As long as the latter continues to run foreign and defense policy -- as he expects it to -- Israeli-Egyptian dynamics won't substantively change."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/06/while_egypt_roils_israel_watches
--------
Think violating US law to favor Israel is absurd? Ever hear of the Symington Amendment? Symington prohibits financial aid to any country with nuclear weapons and NOT complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has at least 200 nuclear war heads, the 5th or 6th largest arsenal in the world, yet doesn't allow any inspections of it's nuclear facilities. With at least 3 Billion in US aid each year to Israel, the USA is breaking it's own laws, is neglecting it's own interests, for the interest of Israel.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/31/idUS216212+31-Mar-2009+PRN20090331
JRStern
Jul 7, 2013, 1:35:17 PM7/7/13
to
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, but it's not that easy.
Jon Karl hosted ABC's "This Week" this morning and made pretty similar
comments. They showed an interview with a very articulate Muslim
Brotherhood guy in Cairo, in jeans and a polo shirt, saying "Of course
this was a military coup!".
Well, perhaps it was. But perhaps it was the *second* coup. Perhaps
Morsi was himself the first "coup". It's a philosophical question
what you may or can do, once elected. Let's just say there are some
things you can't do. And then, what if you do them? You effectively
forfit your own election. Twenty-two million Egyptians took to the
streets to say this is what happened. If Morsi already broke the
social contract of his election - as anyone with any sense would
EXPECT from the Muslim Brotherhood - then a subsequent military coup
isn't necessarily quite that it seems.
I'm just saying, Jon Karl's smug puss on the news never considered
this obvious interpretation, nor does your article above. Don't they
have any requirements for news anchors, other than a nice suit and
network hair? And of course for blog journalism, all you need are
pajamas.
J.
wrote:
Jon Karl hosted ABC's "This Week" this morning and made pretty similar
comments. They showed an interview with a very articulate Muslim
Brotherhood guy in Cairo, in jeans and a polo shirt, saying "Of course
this was a military coup!".
Well, perhaps it was. But perhaps it was the *second* coup. Perhaps
Morsi was himself the first "coup". It's a philosophical question
what you may or can do, once elected. Let's just say there are some
things you can't do. And then, what if you do them? You effectively
forfit your own election. Twenty-two million Egyptians took to the
streets to say this is what happened. If Morsi already broke the
social contract of his election - as anyone with any sense would
EXPECT from the Muslim Brotherhood - then a subsequent military coup
isn't necessarily quite that it seems.
I'm just saying, Jon Karl's smug puss on the news never considered
this obvious interpretation, nor does your article above. Don't they
have any requirements for news anchors, other than a nice suit and
network hair? And of course for blog journalism, all you need are
pajamas.
J.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2013, 2:07:30 PM7/7/13
to
On Wednesday, while Americans were preparing to celebrate our Independence Day, Egypt's military deposed democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi, detained him and a handful of other top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and suspended the Constitution, swearing in Adly Mansour, the little-known chief justice of Egypt's supreme court, as interim president.
This puts the U.S. in a tough situation. "As one of the largest recipients of American aid," says Peter Baker in The New York Times, "Egypt has long depended on Washington's beneficence, and the Obama administration, like its predecessors, has been reluctant to shut off the spigot, to keep the country committed to its longstanding peace agreement with Israel." On the other hand, overthrowing Egypt's first popularly elected president is by definition anti-democratic, and runs pretty starkly against U.S. ideals.
The only real choice the Obama administration has, though, is in determining if this was a coup d'état. If it was, the Foreign Assistance Act mandates that the U.S. suspend Egypt's $1.3 million in annual military aid and $250 million in economic assistance. That determination normally falls to the State Department's legal adviser, a process that can take weeks or even months. With so much at stake, a war of semantics has broken out.
Whatever the Obama administration decides -- coup or something else--"as a practical matter, there would be little immediate impact," says Baker in The New York Times. "Washington disbursed this year's military aid in May and presumably would not deliver more until next winter or spring." But that aid is how U.S. presidents have affected Egyptian policy for decades, and it's no small thing to change the relationship.
"The law by its terms dictates one thing, and sensible policy dictates that we don't do that," former Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) tells The New York Times. "That's why the executive branch gets to decide whether it's a coup or not. Under the plain meaning rule, there was a coup." But if he were president, and in charge of giving Egypt military aid, Berman adds, "I wouldn't cut it off." That money is America's carrot and stick to persuade Egypt's military to do the right thing.
RichA
Jul 7, 2013, 2:45:53 PM7/7/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:07:30 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 7, 2013 5:39:48 AM UTC+1, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This puts the U.S. in a tough situation. "As one of the largest recipients of American aid," says Peter Baker in The New York Times, "Egypt has long depended on Washington's beneficence, and the Obama administration, like its predecessors, has been reluctant to shut off the spigot, to keep the country committed to its longstanding peace agreement with Israel."
Meanwhile, people (not big shots) working in the U.S. defense industry just took a 20% pay cut. They should cut off both Egypt AND Israel as neither is needed by the U.S. anymore.
> On Sunday, July 7, 2013 5:39:48 AM UTC+1, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This puts the U.S. in a tough situation. "As one of the largest recipients of American aid," says Peter Baker in The New York Times, "Egypt has long depended on Washington's beneficence, and the Obama administration, like its predecessors, has been reluctant to shut off the spigot, to keep the country committed to its longstanding peace agreement with Israel."
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/07/news/economy/defense-furloughs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Mason Barge
Jul 7, 2013, 4:09:04 PM7/7/13
to
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:35:17 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at what
point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
decide what sort of government another country may have?
They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
wrote:
point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
decide what sort of government another country may have?
They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 7, 2013, 4:10:46 PM7/7/13
to
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>Jon Karl hosted ABC's "This Week" this morning and made pretty similar
>comments. They showed an interview with a very articulate Muslim
>Brotherhood guy in Cairo, in jeans and a polo shirt, saying "Of course
>this was a military coup!".
>Well, perhaps it was. But perhaps it was the *second* coup. Perhaps
>Morsi was himself the first "coup". . . .
>Jon Karl hosted ABC's "This Week" this morning and made pretty similar
>comments. They showed an interview with a very articulate Muslim
>Brotherhood guy in Cairo, in jeans and a polo shirt, saying "Of course
>this was a military coup!".
>Well, perhaps it was. But perhaps it was the *second* coup. Perhaps
Yeah, I'll agree with that. He made an awful lot of the right noises when
first running for office, like forming a coalition government and respecting
religious minorities, then, sigh, behaved pretty much the way Mubarack had
predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would.
That constitutional process was abhorent.
William December Starr
Jul 7, 2013, 4:19:19 PM7/7/13
to
In article <h3ijt8lcsct5tfd17...@4ax.com>,
-- wds
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
> That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at
> what point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the
> right to decide what sort of government another country may have?
>
> They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
> numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
> democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
American exceptionalism?
> That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at
> what point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the
> right to decide what sort of government another country may have?
>
> They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
> numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
> democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
-- wds
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2013, 4:43:09 PM7/7/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:09:04 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:35:17 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> >>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> >>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> >>to the current administration:
> >>
> >>
> >>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> >>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> >>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> >>for it, whereas Obama is at wit�s end to articulate where he stands on
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:35:17 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> >>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> >>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> >>to the current administration:
> >>
> >>
> >>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> >>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> >>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> >>the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
> >>
> >>Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> >>expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> >>support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> >>president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> >>Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> >>was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
> >>
> >>Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> >>to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> >>views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> >>the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> >>Harvard Yard and other American temples of the �progressive�
> >>
> >>Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> >>expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> >>support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> >>president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> >>Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> >>was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
> >>
> >>Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> >>to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> >>views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> >>the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
http://bit.ly/16h3puc
JRStern
Jul 7, 2013, 5:54:28 PM7/7/13
to
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:09:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
Say what? Are you saying our support for Morsi was arrogating
something, or our not invading right now and putting him back in, is
incorrect?
It's a classic problem with dictators who get elected - one man, one
vote, one time. That was never democracy in the first place. Mark
Steyn quotes the line in this depressing piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352784/princess-and-brotherhood-mark-steyn
Saddam Hussein was reelected how many times with 100% of the vote, is
that the democracy you're defending?
J.
something, or our not invading right now and putting him back in, is
incorrect?
It's a classic problem with dictators who get elected - one man, one
vote, one time. That was never democracy in the first place. Mark
Steyn quotes the line in this depressing piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352784/princess-and-brotherhood-mark-steyn
Saddam Hussein was reelected how many times with 100% of the vote, is
that the democracy you're defending?
J.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2013, 6:17:50 PM7/7/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 10:54:28 PM UTC+1, JRStern wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:09:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:35:17 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> >>>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> >>>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> >>>to the current administration:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> >>>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> >>>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> >>>for it, whereas Obama is at wit�s end to articulate where he stands on
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:09:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:35:17 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 11:59:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> >>>non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> >>>appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> >>>to the current administration:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> >>>not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> >>>the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> >>>the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
> >>>
> >>>Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> >>>expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> >>>support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> >>>president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> >>>Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> >>>was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
> >>>
> >>>Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> >>>to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> >>>views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> >>>the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> >>>Harvard Yard and other American temples of the �progressive�
> >>>
> >>>Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> >>>expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> >>>support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> >>>president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> >>>Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> >>>was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
> >>>
> >>>Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> >>>to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> >>>views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> >>>the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn#Criticism_of_multiculturalism
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 7, 2013, 8:09:58 PM7/7/13
to
----------
Still wondering what happened to Gaddafi's 140 tons of gold bars....
Barb May
Jul 8, 2013, 12:19:44 PM7/8/13
to
RichA wrote:
> Meanwhile, people (not big shots) working in the U.S. defense
> industry just took a 20% pay cut.
Cry me a river.
> Meanwhile, people (not big shots) working in the U.S. defense
> industry just took a 20% pay cut.
US Defense Industry = corporate welfare
Defense jobs = modern WPA, aka make work projects, of which
manufacturing the Abrams tank is a very good example
--
Barb
Mason Barge
Jul 8, 2013, 12:39:12 PM7/8/13
to
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 14:54:28 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
That's a great bit of newspeak. It's like "substantive due process"
or the California Supreme Court striking down a California
Constitutional amendment because it violated the Cal. Constitution.
Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
military coup d'etat.
This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
or the California Supreme Court striking down a California
Constitutional amendment because it violated the Cal. Constitution.
Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
military coup d'etat.
This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 8, 2013, 1:33:06 PM7/8/13
to
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
>far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
>as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
>military coup d'etat.
>This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
>Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
>The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
>and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
The military deposed Morsi backing mass public protests against the regime.
>Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
>far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
>as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
>military coup d'etat.
>This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
>Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
>The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
>and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
That's got to be a first in the history of coups. The Turkish military has
deposed the occassional government, typically for attempts to impose
religion to stray from the secular state established by Ataturk, but I
don't recall this was ever on behalf of very large numbers of protestors.
This was in no way reminiscent of foreign powers deposing benign governments
in Central America or major democratically elected and still benign
governments like Iran.
Morsi had imposed a new constitution. Yeah, there was a vote but it wasn't
written via a public participation process and clearly favored his
incumbent government and its attempt to impose a religious state. Morsi
had started jailing some opponents and journalists.
Suppose his regime hadn't fallen. Did you expect free and open elections
in the fourth year of his regime and a peaceful transition to the next
regime? It sure didn't look like it was going that way.
I'd have preferred that the military not depose Morsi because I could
anticipate that things could be so much worse. But it's truly difficult
to fault the military.
EGK
Jul 8, 2013, 2:19:11 PM7/8/13
to
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:09:04 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at what
>point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
>decide what sort of government another country may have?
>
>They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
>numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
>democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
I've said for years that our politicians need to get down from the ivory
tower they've set themselves up in. For instance, America doesn't have
that great a track record for human rights to be going around telling the
rest of the world what they should or shouldn't be doing. It really does
smack of hypocrisy to the rest of the world and goes a long way to explain
why so many of them hate us.
wrote:
>That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at what
>point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
>decide what sort of government another country may have?
>
>They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
>numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
>democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
tower they've set themselves up in. For instance, America doesn't have
that great a track record for human rights to be going around telling the
rest of the world what they should or shouldn't be doing. It really does
smack of hypocrisy to the rest of the world and goes a long way to explain
why so many of them hate us.
JRStern
Jul 8, 2013, 8:20:52 PM7/8/13
to
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:39:12 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at what
>>>point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
>>>decide what sort of government another country may have?
>>>
>>>They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
>>>numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
>>>democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
>>
>>Say what? Are you saying our support for Morsi was arrogating
>>something, or our not invading right now and putting him back in, is
>>incorrect?
>>
>>It's a classic problem with dictators who get elected - one man, one
>>vote, one time. That was never democracy in the first place.
>
>That's a great bit of newspeak. It's like "substantive due process"
>or the California Supreme Court striking down a California
>Constitutional amendment because it violated the Cal. Constitution.
>
>Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
>far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
>as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
>military coup d'etat.
>
>This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
>Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
>
>The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
>and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
Well, I'm not going to claim to have been following the details of
what's been going on in Egypt any more than you seem to have, but it
was enough to get fifteen million people out on the street.
And I still can't tell what your specific complaint is, it sounds like
you think the US does too much, but this time the US is doing nothing,
so what would you like to see the US be doing right now? More? Less?
Can't be less. And if it's more - what gives us the right?
J.
wrote:
>>>That's all fine and dandy, but it misses the primary point -- at what
>>>point does the United States cease to arrogate to itself the right to
>>>decide what sort of government another country may have?
>>>
>>>They say "democracy democracy democracy" while killing off large
>>>numbers of natives. So if they don't like what happens in the
>>>democracy they imposed, what excuse do they have?
>>
>>Say what? Are you saying our support for Morsi was arrogating
>>something, or our not invading right now and putting him back in, is
>>incorrect?
>>
>>It's a classic problem with dictators who get elected - one man, one
>>vote, one time. That was never democracy in the first place.
>
>That's a great bit of newspeak. It's like "substantive due process"
>or the California Supreme Court striking down a California
>Constitutional amendment because it violated the Cal. Constitution.
>
>Certainly there are puppet elections in a lot of dictatorships, but as
>far as I can tell, Morsi had a majority vote, was serving in his term
>as the democratically-elected President of Egypt, and was removed by a
>military coup d'etat.
>
>This is very reminiscent of the CIA shenanigans in Central America.
>Actually, it started a long time before the CIA existed.
>
>The United States' foreign policy does NOT represent "truth, justice,
>and the American Way" as those phrases are intended.
what's been going on in Egypt any more than you seem to have, but it
was enough to get fifteen million people out on the street.
And I still can't tell what your specific complaint is, it sounds like
you think the US does too much, but this time the US is doing nothing,
so what would you like to see the US be doing right now? More? Less?
Can't be less. And if it's more - what gives us the right?
J.
RichA
Jul 8, 2013, 8:40:33 PM7/8/13
to
JRStern
Jul 8, 2013, 10:41:52 PM7/8/13
to
don't have them if and when we need them.
The "military-industrial complex" is a real problem, but it is also a
real asset, and key to the US's prosperity and freedom in the modern
age. Such is life - things are complex.
J.
Barb May
Jul 9, 2013, 11:16:36 AM7/9/13
to
doesn't want any more made.
Here's a source you won't dismiss:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/
"Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists"
As I said, it's a jobs program
--
Barb
Barb May
Jul 9, 2013, 11:18:26 AM7/9/13
to
JRStern wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:19:44 -0700, "Barb May"
> <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>
>> RichA wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, people (not big shots) working in the U.S. defense
>>> industry just took a 20% pay cut.
>>
>> Cry me a river.
>>
>> US Defense Industry = corporate welfare
>> Defense jobs = modern WPA, aka make work projects, of which
>> manufacturing the Abrams tank is a very good example
>
> Yet if we don't pay the overhead to keep such capabilities alive, we
> don't have them if and when we need them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 09:19:44 -0700, "Barb May"
> <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>
>> RichA wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, people (not big shots) working in the U.S. defense
>>> industry just took a 20% pay cut.
>>
>> Cry me a river.
>>
>> US Defense Industry = corporate welfare
>> Defense jobs = modern WPA, aka make work projects, of which
>> manufacturing the Abrams tank is a very good example
>
> Yet if we don't pay the overhead to keep such capabilities alive, we
> don't have them if and when we need them.
"Steven Grundman, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council in
Washington, said the difficulty of reviving defense industrial
capabilities tends to be overstated. "From the fairly insular world in
which the defense industry operates, these capabilities seem to be
unique and in many cases extraordinarily high art," said Grundman, a
former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs and
installations during the Clinton administration. "But in the greater
scope of the economy, they tend not to be.""
--
Barb
Mason Barge
Jul 9, 2013, 12:36:49 PM7/9/13
to
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:41:52 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:
It is and I'm not arguing against your point, which I understand.
But most of the US military budget these days goes toward playing
police chief and/or protecting other countries. There is really very
little military threat to the United States.
wrote:
But most of the US military budget these days goes toward playing
police chief and/or protecting other countries. There is really very
little military threat to the United States.
Mason Barge
Jul 9, 2013, 12:45:46 PM7/9/13
to
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 17:20:52 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:
Hah! A cartoon in a Dutch newspaper can get 15 million Egyptians into
than trying to find facts (which isn't always easy). IIRC, the Senate
was talking about cuttting off foreign aid to Egypt because they
didn't like the elected regime.
I do tell you one thing I would have done, to get something out of the
entire Iraq-Afghanistan debacle, and that is getting one of the
US-controlled governments to lease us a huge chunk of land for 99
years, on which to put an air base.
wrote:
the street.
>And I still can't tell what your specific complaint is, it sounds like
>you think the US does too much, but this time the US is doing nothing,
>so what would you like to see the US be doing right now? More? Less?
>Can't be less. And if it's more - what gives us the right?
Eh, I think I overspoke because I'm listening to the rhetoric rather
>And I still can't tell what your specific complaint is, it sounds like
>you think the US does too much, but this time the US is doing nothing,
>so what would you like to see the US be doing right now? More? Less?
>Can't be less. And if it's more - what gives us the right?
than trying to find facts (which isn't always easy). IIRC, the Senate
was talking about cuttting off foreign aid to Egypt because they
didn't like the elected regime.
I do tell you one thing I would have done, to get something out of the
entire Iraq-Afghanistan debacle, and that is getting one of the
US-controlled governments to lease us a huge chunk of land for 99
years, on which to put an air base.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 9, 2013, 1:14:41 PM7/9/13
to
JRStern
Jul 10, 2013, 1:44:48 AM7/10/13
to
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:45:46 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I do tell you one thing I would have done, to get something out of the
>entire Iraq-Afghanistan debacle, and that is getting one of the
>US-controlled governments to lease us a huge chunk of land for 99
>years, on which to put an air base.
No kidding.
But I think we've drifted off to another topic, don't you?
J.
wrote:
>I do tell you one thing I would have done, to get something out of the
>entire Iraq-Afghanistan debacle, and that is getting one of the
>US-controlled governments to lease us a huge chunk of land for 99
>years, on which to put an air base.
But I think we've drifted off to another topic, don't you?
J.
JRStern
Jul 10, 2013, 1:52:34 AM7/10/13
to
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:18:26 -0700, "Barb May"
Steven Grundman must be an idiot.
Like Obama.
They tend to think just wave a magic wand, and get whatever you want.
Just think Solyndra.
Doesn't work like that, not even a little bit.
J.
Like Obama.
They tend to think just wave a magic wand, and get whatever you want.
Just think Solyndra.
Doesn't work like that, not even a little bit.
J.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2013, 2:30:23 AM7/10/13
to
On Sunday, July 7, 2013 5:39:48 AM UTC+1, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel has urged Washington not to suspend its annual $1.3 billion in aid to Cairo in the wake of the ouster of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi by the military, press reports said on Tuesday.
Under US law, all military and economic aid must be suspended to any country where the government is overthrown by the military, although Washington has not yet determined whether it considers the June 30 removal of Morsi was actually a coup - a claim made by the Muslim Brotherhood, to which the ousted president belongs.
According to a senior US official quoted by Haaretz newspaper, Israel's top political echelon had engaged in "marathon phone calls" with Washington over the weekend, warning that any suspension of aid could impact on Israel's security and even undermine its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt.
Dano
Jul 10, 2013, 12:06:14 PM7/10/13
to
"JRStern" wrote in message
news:o6tpt8l3ft67p8oki...@4ax.com...
=======================================
How is making a government backed loan "waving a magic wand"?
You can certainly question the wisdom of that...but you overstate your case.
As usual.
So can we assume you oppose the government doing anything to help new
technologies? Do you realize the role of the Chinese government in this
case? How they "compete" with our American companies? And not every
investment succeeds. Solyndra was but ONE company that got this type of
help. You always ignore the success stories...cherry picking a failure.
The fact is, you're simply parroting the same old discredited nonsense that
contributed to the defeat of Romney in the last election. The Solyndra
issue was clearly a loser for your side to anyone who delved just a little
into it. They were one company...a fraction of the stimulus of the clean
energy stimulus package that was on the whole, pretty successful in job
creation and advances in technology. Odf course we can also simply sit on
our hands while China "drinks our milkshake" if you prefer. Let's take on
the type austerity measures that have been such a resounding success
(sarcasm) in Europe.
I doubt you will be bothered to read any of this...but just in case anyone
else might care to take a more balanced look at how this played out I'll put
this out there...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/solyndra-stunk-the-green-stimulus-didnt/
The federal clean-energy loan guarantee program that gave you Solyndra wasn’t
just a multibillion-dollar political debacle – it also didn’t create jobs,
didn’t reduce carbon emissions and ran up financial risk for taxpayers.
And yet, the program wasn’t enough of a bust to outweigh the job-creation
and emissions-reducing successes of the complete $90 billion “green
stimulus” the Obama administration built into the $800 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act four years ago, as the country was plunging
deeper into recession.
These are the conclusions Harvard University economist Joseph Aldy reaches
in a new research paper on the economic and environmental effects of the
Recovery Act, just published online by the Review of Environmental Economics
and Policy. They’re notable – particularly the harsh critique of the loan
guarantees – because Aldy helped craft the act from inside the White House.
(Here is an earlier version of the same paper available without a
subscription.)
His top-line, and unsurprising, takeaway is that the green stimulus was
worth it – perhaps not optimally cost-effective, but still important for
both jobs and carbon, even if neither unemployment nor emissions levels are
where America needs them to be today.
Creating jobs was the big goal behind the Recovery Act, but it wasn’t the
only goal. President Obama and his advisers hoped to put a “down payment” on
efforts to reduce emissions and avert the most dramatic potential effects of
global warming, largely by promoting renewable electricity generation and
energy-efficiency measures. Hence the package of grants, tax credits, green
jobs programs and, yes, loan guarantees, that made its way into the bill.
news:o6tpt8l3ft67p8oki...@4ax.com...
How is making a government backed loan "waving a magic wand"?
You can certainly question the wisdom of that...but you overstate your case.
As usual.
So can we assume you oppose the government doing anything to help new
technologies? Do you realize the role of the Chinese government in this
case? How they "compete" with our American companies? And not every
investment succeeds. Solyndra was but ONE company that got this type of
help. You always ignore the success stories...cherry picking a failure.
The fact is, you're simply parroting the same old discredited nonsense that
contributed to the defeat of Romney in the last election. The Solyndra
issue was clearly a loser for your side to anyone who delved just a little
into it. They were one company...a fraction of the stimulus of the clean
energy stimulus package that was on the whole, pretty successful in job
creation and advances in technology. Odf course we can also simply sit on
our hands while China "drinks our milkshake" if you prefer. Let's take on
the type austerity measures that have been such a resounding success
(sarcasm) in Europe.
I doubt you will be bothered to read any of this...but just in case anyone
else might care to take a more balanced look at how this played out I'll put
this out there...
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/solyndra-stunk-the-green-stimulus-didnt/
The federal clean-energy loan guarantee program that gave you Solyndra wasn’t
just a multibillion-dollar political debacle – it also didn’t create jobs,
didn’t reduce carbon emissions and ran up financial risk for taxpayers.
And yet, the program wasn’t enough of a bust to outweigh the job-creation
and emissions-reducing successes of the complete $90 billion “green
stimulus” the Obama administration built into the $800 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act four years ago, as the country was plunging
deeper into recession.
These are the conclusions Harvard University economist Joseph Aldy reaches
in a new research paper on the economic and environmental effects of the
Recovery Act, just published online by the Review of Environmental Economics
and Policy. They’re notable – particularly the harsh critique of the loan
guarantees – because Aldy helped craft the act from inside the White House.
(Here is an earlier version of the same paper available without a
subscription.)
His top-line, and unsurprising, takeaway is that the green stimulus was
worth it – perhaps not optimally cost-effective, but still important for
both jobs and carbon, even if neither unemployment nor emissions levels are
where America needs them to be today.
Creating jobs was the big goal behind the Recovery Act, but it wasn’t the
only goal. President Obama and his advisers hoped to put a “down payment” on
efforts to reduce emissions and avert the most dramatic potential effects of
global warming, largely by promoting renewable electricity generation and
energy-efficiency measures. Hence the package of grants, tax credits, green
jobs programs and, yes, loan guarantees, that made its way into the bill.
Barb May
Jul 10, 2013, 1:04:12 PM7/10/13
to
JR. You can't win 'em all.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/?hpt=hp_c1
If you need an example of why it is hard to cut the budget in Washington
look no further than this Army depot in the shadow of the Sierra Nevada
range. CNN was allowed rare access to what amounts to a parking lot for
more than 2,000 M-1 Abrams tanks. Here, about an hour's drive north of
Reno, Nevada, the tanks have been collecting dust in the hot California
desert because of a tiff between the Army and Congress. The U.S. has
more than enough combat tanks in the field to meet the nation's defense
needs - so there's no sense in making repairs to these now, the Army's
chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress earlier this year.
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9780/nowyobrazmapybitowej8i.png
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/U-S-Army-Congress-No-New-Tanks-Please
That money will buy between 42 and 44 tanks, which is fewer than needed
to keep the production line going..."In order to sustain the Abrams line
at Lima, you have to produce at least 70 tanks a year. So, while the
money provided is substantial, it will not fill the production gaps,"
... Army analysis found that it would cost $600 million to $800 million
to close and later reopen the production line versus the nearly $3
billion it would take to keep it up and running during that same time.
Not only does the Army not need the extra tanks now, it likely will have
even less use for them once it completes a force mix study currently
underway
If the Army doesn't want them, we'll just sell the extras to other
countries to make up the difference. Sure. Why not?
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/U-S-Army-Congress-No-New-Tanks-Please
Last July, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of
a potential sale to Egypt of 125 M1A1 tank kits for an estimated cost of
$1.3 billion. Saudi Arabia already has a large fleet of Abrams tanks.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/22/please-no-tanks-how-the-pentagon-is-spending-your-money-on-aut/
The fact is, we've already got so much surplus "tankage" in the U.S.
that last year we offered to give Greece 400 M1 Abrams tanks for free.
(We did ask the Greeks to pay the shipping, however. Our generosity has
its limits.) As it turns out, this is standard operating procedure for
the Pentagon. In 2010 the U.S. tried a similar fire sale on military
equipment, offering to give Romania 24 slightly used F-16s -- also for
the low, low price of zilch. America's "buy, mothball, then give away"
strategy works out well for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin
(LMT) and General Dynamics. But it's probably not the best stewardship
of taxpayer dollars.
Brilliant!
And finally, a humorours take on this situation:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-7-2013/tanks--but-no-tanks
--
Barb
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 10, 2013, 6:22:23 PM7/10/13
to
Our prosperity? Military spending is like gambling. It's just monies removed
from the economy. Defense industries aren't comparable to civilian industries.
They aren't making anything economically useful.
JRStern
Jul 10, 2013, 11:26:43 PM7/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:04:12 -0700, "Barb May"
<bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>Obama's an idiot and Solyndra?
Right.
<bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>Obama's an idiot and Solyndra?
> Now you're not even trying.
>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/22/please-no-tanks-how-the-pentagon-is-spending-your-money-on-aut/
>The fact is, we've already got so much surplus "tankage" in the U.S.
>that last year we offered to give Greece 400 M1 Abrams tanks for free.
>(We did ask the Greeks to pay the shipping, however. Our generosity has
>its limits.) As it turns out, this is standard operating procedure for
>the Pentagon. In 2010 the U.S. tried a similar fire sale on military
>equipment, offering to give Romania 24 slightly used F-16s -- also for
>the low, low price of zilch. America's "buy, mothball, then give away"
>strategy works out well for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin
>(LMT) and General Dynamics. But it's probably not the best stewardship
>of taxpayer dollars.
>
>Brilliant!
J.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2013, 8:20:48 AM7/11/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments.
Obama's Egypt Policy: The Israel Factor
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments.
By Michael Crowley @CrowleyTIME July 11, 2013
http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/11/obamas-egypt-policy-the-israel-factor/
As Washington debates whether to cut off America's $1.5 billion in annual assistance to Egypt, few countries are watching with more interest than Israel. On Monday the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reported that Israeli officials have urged President Barack Obama to keep subsidizing Cairo despite the legal prohibition on U.S. aid to governments installed by military coup. That's no surprise: "Israel has always been a very strong proponent of the assistance program," says Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Cairo. "It is in Israel's interest that the U.S. maintain a very strong relationship with Egypt." But understanding why that is goes to the heart of America's relationship with Egypt-and why Obama is so reluctant to disrupt it.
Israel is the prime reason why Egypt has for nearly 25 years been the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. (The top recipient is-you guessed it-Israel.) American largesse began flowing to Cairo in 1979, after Egypt's then-president, Anwar Sadat, signed the September 1978 Camp David accords establishing peace between Egypt and Israel. That was a remarkable development, considering the two nations had conducted four armed conflicts in the first 25 years of Israel's existence, and given the deep hostility within Egypt towards the Jewish state.
With his country economically stagnant, however, Sadat saw the accords as a new hope for Egypt. They would reclaim the Sinai desert lost to Israel in 1967; end a constant state of war on its border; move Cairo from Moscow's orbit into Washington's; and help to advance the Palestinian cause. But Sadat's people didn't see the final product that way: "Peace with Israel had become a betrayal," writes Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations in his 2011 book The Struggle for Egypt. Indeed, signing the American-brokered peace deal would cost Sadat his life when an Islamist army soldier gunned him down as he reviewed a military parade on October 6, 1981.
But the peace deal survived the murder of the man who sealed it. And so did the generous American aid that soon began as a result of the accords (in what Cook, via email, calls "an informal payoff"). That aid has actually grown less generous, however. Since 1998, Congress has cut non-military assistance to Egypt from $815 million to $250 million. Meanwhile the $1.3 billion in military funds that Washington grants Cairo has not increased in 30 years; its inflation-adjusted value has dropped by more than half. That still allows Egypt to purchase state of the art equipment, largely consisting of M-1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets. But thanks to a lack of trained personnel, not to mention peace on its borders, "most of the time these tanks and aircraft are just gathering dust," says Tarek Radwan of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council. (On Wednesday Reuters reported that the U.S. will allow the delivery to Egypt of four already-purchased F-16s.)
More important, then, is the symbolic goodwill and very tangible direct relations with the Egyptian army that money purchases. That's in the interest of Washington officials who want influence within the Arab world's most populous country. And it's most welcome in Israel, which, far from fearing Egypt's armed forces, sees them as a buffer against extremists who might prefer a return to hostilities. "Israel sees the Egyptian military as a pro-peace lobby inside the Egyptian political system," says David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The peace deal, and Washington's influence over Egypt, helps Israel in other ways. Egyptian forces provide secure Egypt's border with Israeli in the Sinai, as well as the nearby border with Gaza, likely preventing terrorist attacks on Israel from the area. Makovsky also notes Egypt's influence with Palestinian leaders. While its ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, tilted towards the radicals of Hamas, Egypt's military and its political allies are closer to the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who was quick to "congratulate the Egyptian leadership in this transitional phase of its history."
No one thinks a cutoff of American aid would lead to another war between Israel and Egypt. Anti-Semitism is rampant in Egypt, and Israeli diplomats live and work under tight security. But a pragmatic peace endures: Makovsky recalls being in Cairo with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and hearing Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, declare that war with Israel knocks out a generation of economic development for Egypt. "The U.S. and Israel don't want wars," Makovsky says. "Egypt doesn't want war. Everybody's happy. There's no incentive for anybody to change that." Even Morsi, who once urged Egyptians "to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them," didn't try to end peace with Israel.
Even so, Israel would prefer not to tinker with a formula that has served its interests quite well for a generation-particularly when it has growing threats from Syria and Iran to worry about. Moreover, as Jeffrey Goldberg notes, Pakistan offers a cautionary lesson in what can become of a foreign military's officer corps when U.S. aid is suddenly withdrawn.
"This is when you need influence with the military," says Wisner, whom Obama tapped as a special envoy to Mubarak during the 2011 crisis that toppled the former Egyptian leader. "You don't give it away by cutting your ties." Israel is clearly hoping that Obama will heed that message.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2013, 9:17:46 AM8/10/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
McCain and Graham flipflop on aid to Egypt- after AIPAC speaks up
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Philip Weiss on August 8, 2013 53
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/mccain-and-graham-flipflop-on-aid-to-egypt-after-aipac-speaks-up.html
Two conservative senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, went to Egypt this week to urge Egyptian leaders to show more respect for democracy. McCain and Graham may be Republicans, but they have a lot of clout. They were reported to have the blessing of the Obama administration in making this embassy.
Why do they have such clout? One reason is that they are extremely responsive to the Israel lobby. In fact, both men lately flipflopped on a principled statement-- cutting off aid to Egypt -- evidently at the urging of AIPAC, the leading Israel lobby organization.
Here is the sequence.
Back in early July, McCain went on CBS's Face the Nation saying that the U.S. should cut off aid to Egypt.
"Reluctantly, I believe that we have to suspend aid until such time as there is a new constitution and a free and fair election."
McCain had good company: libertarian Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham too.
McCain and Graham made clear that this was a matter of principle. They wrote a long op-ed in calling for a cut-off of aid to Egypt in the Washington Post last month:
We know that many of our friends in Egypt and the region do not want the United States to suspend assistance. But we are fully committed to encouraging the Egyptian people's efforts to build an effective and enduring democracy. And if Egyptians join together and move their country toward the democratic future that so many of them have risked so much to achieve, we will be the first to call for a full restoration of U.S. assistance to Egypt.
The op-ed cited "our democratic values" and the wisdom gained from the U.S. experience in the Middle East:
If events in Egypt and the broader Middle East over the past three years have taught us anything, it should be that we may pay a short-term price by standing up for our democratic values, but it is in our long-term national interest to do so. Ultimately, that is the best thing the United States can do to support our friends in Egypt and around the world.
Hold on, guys. Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, formerly McCain and Graham's wingman in the neoconservative caucus called the Three Amigos, weighed in. From the National Review, July 15:
The retired Democratic-turned-independent senator expressed guarded optimism about the state of affairs in Egypt, and declared that, contra his former ally John McCain, the U.S. shouldn't cut off its aid to the Egyptian military.
He explained to Sean Hannity today... "I'm actually going to disagree with my buddy John McCain; I don't think we should suspend military aid."
Then the other shoe drops. AIPAC, the leading Israel lobby group, also speaks up. Jewish Telegraphic Agency:
"We do not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time, as we believe it could increase the instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally," AIPAC said in a letter to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), its top Republican.
The letter is the first public signal since the army coup that deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in early July that AIPAC is actively opposing efforts to cut aid to Egypt.
And McCain and Graham sided with AIPAC. The Senate killed Rand Paul's bill to end aid to Egypt on July 31, with McCain and Graham harping on Israel:
The floor debate was virtually everyone versus Paul. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said cutting off aid to Egypt would also hurt Israel, a close ally.
Here's the transcript of that debate. (Which Ali Gharib reported first). Graham and McCain repeatedly cited AIPAC.
"As you know, Egypt is the largest Arab state in the Middle East and has played a vital role in advancing key U.S. interests in that region," said the [AIPAC] letter, read into the Senate record on Wednesday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Graham said that if Egypt becomes a failed state, "it would be a nightmare for Israel, and it would take the whole region down a path that would be at best chaotic."
McCain called Rand Paul an isolationist and an American Firster and also cited the AIPAC letter:
I think the vote on this amendment has even larger implications than that of whether we should cut off all assistance to Egypt. By the way, my friends, I don't think it is an accident that APAC, our friends there who represent the interests of the State of Israel, have opposed this amendment. If there is further upheaval in the Sinai, and if there is a collapse of the rule of law in Egypt, I don't think there is any doubt that the threat to Israel is dramatically increased.
McCain made a statement about Israel's interests that many have quoted since:
Again, isn't the question whether the Senator from Kentucky knows what is better for Israel or Israel knows what is better for Israel? The fact is, AIPAC and the Israelis are adamantly opposed to this amendment; isn't that correct?
It certainly appears that the two men abandoned a position of principle because AIPAC told them to. You'd think they would be buffoons. But they're not. They haven't lost any political capital for this abdication of principle. No, they've gained political capital. The Times said the senators went to Egypt this week "at the request of President Obama." And as Jeff Klein, who pointed me to this story, says, No one in the press is calling them out for flipflopping. It's just not a story when powerful senators dance to AIPAC's tune.
This is a demonstration of how central AIPAC's ideas are to American foreign policy. As neocon Lee Smith once said, the central plank of the last dictatorship in Egypt was the peace treaty. That is all that matters to the U.S. We're willing to throw everything else overboard for the sake of preserving Israel's security.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2013, 5:26:46 PM8/16/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
August 16, 2013
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Ex-State Department Spokesperson P.J. Crowley: The U.S. Should Describe Morsi Ouster as a Coup
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/16/ex_state_department_spokesperson_pj_crowley
P.J. CROWLEY: Well, what we do matters.
What we say matters.
And when our words and actions don't match, the credibility of the United States is at stake.
I certainly think, in the context of Egypt, our promotion of democracy in the region has been severely damaged by our hesitation to call a coup a coup.
I certainly think, and I'm sure you would agree, that as you try to build a democracy in a country that has not experienced it before, you know, what is the better foundation upon which to begin democracy? Is it an election--even if it's an election of a president who is governing narrowly, not governing expansively--or is it a military coup?
I would argue that the better course of action would have been, you know, to not only try to work with Morsi to make his government more inclusive, but also to continue to work with the political opposition to prepare for a future election where, you know, Morsi will have to defend his record.
And if he remained as unpopular as he evidently was, that would suggest a different result in the next election.
But obviously that's not the course that the Obama administration has pursued.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2013, 5:58:23 PM8/16/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
US aid to Egypt is not for Egypt but Israel, JJ Goldberg explains
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Philip Weiss on August 16, 2013
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/us-aid-to-egypt-is-not-for-egypt-but-israel-jj-goldberg-explains.html
At the Forward, JJ Goldberg gets to the bottom of US policy: he says US aid to Egypt cannot be withheld because it's "bad for the Jews."
the course of action that seems self-evidently proper to right-minded Americans -- punishing the Egyptian military, ending military cooperation, suspending aid -- will almost certainly have a catastrophic impact on Israel's peace with Egypt....
America's billion-dollar-plus annual aid package to Egypt does not exist for Egypt's benefit, but for Israel's. It's the carrot, or bribe, that keeps Egypt faithful to its peace treaty with Israel, despite its enormous unpopularity on the Egyptian street. That treaty is critical to Israel.
I think Goldberg is right; and this is the reason that the US will not suspend aid. I have often stated here that the US supported a dictatorship in Egypt for decades because of US support for Israel-- that the self-determination of 80 million Arabs counted for nothing when it came to the US determination to maintain a Jewish garrison state that was established by war and preserved by force.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Aug 18, 2013, 6:14:08 PM8/18/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Israelis assured Egyptian military there'd be no cutoff in US aid, NYT says (and Israel denies)
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Philip Weiss on August 18, 2013 2
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/israelis-assured-egyptian-military-thered-be-no-cutoff-in-us-aid-nyt-says-and-israel-denies.html
The New York Times has a lengthy reported piece on how US efforts to cut a deal in Egypt to resolve differences peacefully between the Muslim Brothers and the leaders of the military coup were undercut by a variety of forces.
The emirates, along with Saudi Arabia, had swiftly supported the military takeover [in early July] with a pledge of billions of dollars, undermining Western threats to cut off critical loans or aid.
The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.
When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it "could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally." Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.
After the piece first appeared online, the Times appears to have added this paragraph:
Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.
Raising the issue, if it's the Israelis lobbying, why isn't AIPAC a foreign agent?
-------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-by-us-failed-to-sway-egypts-leaders.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
"Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it."
Raising the issue,
if it's the Israelis lobbying,
why isn't AIPAC a foreign agent?
thinbl...@gmail.com
Aug 20, 2013, 10:54:38 AM8/20/13
to
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:59:01 PM UTC+1, Mason Barge wrote:
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
Senator: Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt
> This article by Peter Morici of "The Exchange" spells out the
> non-sequitur of American foreign policy pretty clearly. Although he
> appears to be a conservative, I don't think that the issue is limited
> to the current administration:
>
>
> "Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if
> not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least
> the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price
> for it, whereas Obama is at wit s end to articulate where he stands on
> the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.
>
> Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the
> expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or
> support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the
> president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the
> Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and
> was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.
>
> Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable
> to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those
> views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in
> the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on
> Harvard Yard and other American temples of the progressive
> movement."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/america-mess-egypt-164639195.html?l=1
by Josh Rogin Aug 19, 2013
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/19/senator-obama-administration-secretly-suspended-military-aid-to-egypt.html
The White House has quietly placed military aid to Egypt on hold, despite not saying publicly whether the Egyptian military takeover was a coup
The U.S. government has decided privately to act as if the military takeover of Egypt was a coup, temporarily suspending most forms of military aid, despite deciding not to announce publicly a coup determination one way or the other, according to a leading U.S. senator.
Supporters of Egypt's top military officer, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, march over a bridge leading to Tahrir Square in Cairo after the ouster of democratically elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. For decades, foreign armies that receive U.S. assistance have been on notice that toppling their freely elected civilian leaders will have penalties. It seems the White House is making good on those threats by cutting aid. (Nariman El-Mofty/AP)
In the latest example of its poorly understood Egypt policy, the Obama administration has decided to temporarily suspend the disbursement of most direct military aid, the delivery of weapons to the Egyptian military, and some forms of economic aid to the Egyptian government while it conducts a broad review of the relationship. The administration won't publicly acknowledge all aspects of the aid suspension and maintains its rhetorical line that no official coup determination has been made, but behind the scenes, extensive measures to treat the military takeover of Egypt last month as a coup are being implemented on a temporary basis.
The office of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the head of the appropriations state and foreign-operations subcommittee, told The Daily Beast on Monday that military aid to Egypt has been temporarily cut off.
Leahy's "understanding is that aid to the Egyptian military has been halted,
as
required
by
law,"
0 new messages