White House won't say whether Egypt was a coup

From: Politico

The White House is taking its time to determine whether the overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a coup because of the potential fallout from calling it one, press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

"I'm being very clear with you ... this is a complex and difficult issue with significant consequences," Carney said during his daily briefing, the first since Egypt's military ousted Morsi nearly a week ago. Calling the action a coup could cut off more than $1.5 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid for Egypt.

But the Obama administration is reluctant to cut off aid. "We think it would not be in the best interests of the United States" to change its aid program at this time, Carney said. Asked if that would mean the administration would be cutting off aid in the near-term, Carney repeated his response: "we think that would not be in our best interests."

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called for the U.S. government to cut off its aid. "I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time," he said in a statement Monday. “This is an incredibly difficult decision, but we have to learn the lessons of history and remain true to our values. If millions of Egyptians come to believe that democracy offers them no opportunity to advance their goals peacefully, it will only fuel violence and extremism. That is a path to civil conflict." Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has also said that Egypt is in danger of losing its eligibility for foreign aid.

Carney said the White House is taking its time, though he wouldn't specify whether that meant a decision would come in a matter of days or longer.

"It is not in our interest in moving particularly quickly" in determining what last week's actions mean, he said, and it is an issue that is "charged" for tens of millions of  Egyptians who have differing views on what happened. At this point, he stressed, "the U.S. is not aligned with -- nor is it supporting -- any particular political party or group."

"Our objective is to promote efforts at reconciliation and inclusion" and progress toward democratic governance, Carney said, repeating: "we will take the time necessary to do that in a way that is responsible and that will serve our longer term policy objectives."

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made similar statements during her Monday press briefing.

John McCain Makes An Ass of Himself On Drones

The Morlock Revolt: The Miserable Adventures of McCain and Graham in History

 From: The Morlock Revolt: 

Yesterday marked a historic event in the history of liberty in this country.  Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky made a 13 hour filibuster against suggestions from the Obama Administration that American civilians can be killed in drone strikes in the country.

Morsy implies Jews control the American media

From: The Cable

Last week in Cairo, seven U.S. senators had a highly contentious meeting with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy during which the Muslim Brotherhood leader implied that he was the victim of an American media run by the Jews.


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) led a delegation last week to Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Afghanistan that included Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Kirsten Gilibrand (D-NY). Their stop in Cairo included a 90-minute meeting with Morsy that devolved into an uncomfortable set of exchanges as the senators pressed the Egyptian president to explain his 2010 comments describing Jews as "bloodsuckers who attack Palestinians" as well as "the descendants of apes and pigs."

After the meeting, McCain issued a statement saying that the senators "voiced our strong disapproval of the statement" and that the senators and Morsy "had a constructive discussion on this subject."

Morsy's spokesman issued a statement after the meeting saying that Morsy believed in religious freedom and "the need to distinguish between the Jewish religion, and those who belong to it, and violent actions against defenseless Palestinians."

But inside the meeting, the discussion over Morsy's 2010 remarks was much more heated than either side publicly acknowledged afterwards, according to Coons. Addressing the comments was the first item on the senators' agenda, and the discussion did not go well, he told The Cable in an interview.

"We tried to give President Morsy an opportunity, now that he is the president, to put his comments in a different context because he was claiming that he was taken out of context. On their face they seemed to be very offensive and inappropriate," Coons said. "It was a difficult conversation."

Morsy told the senators that the values of Islam teach respect for Christianity and Judaism, and he asserted repeatedly that he had no negative views about Judaism or the Jewish people, but then followed with a diatribe about Israel and Zionist actions against Palestinians, especially in Gaza.
Then Morsy crossed a line and made a comment that made the senators physically recoil in their chairs in shock, Coons said.

Sean Hannity Takes John McCain To the Woodshed

John McCain and Lindsey Graham's Pathetic Definition of "Isolationism"

Well, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are at it again. Every neoconservatives favorite pair of Senators have subjected opponents of action in Libya and the future of Afghanistan as "isolationist". I'll address the ignorance of the neo conservatives regarding over extension of force in a future post, but right now they need to be called out for their pathetic defense of our current interventions.

Let me say that like most or all conservatives I supported invading Afghanistan because as we all know they were harboring Bin Laden. No brainer. I supported the invasion of Iraq on the basis he had weapons of mass destruction even though we now know that's not the case. Ok, bad Intel, but we still got rid of the Saddam headache. I support using drones in Yemen precisely because it's targeting Al Qaeda in a strategic locale and we are not deployed beyond drones. That works for me.

Senator McCain's criticism and false application of "isolationism" to decry the GOP field of Presidential candidates position on Libya and Afghanistan is wrong for the following reasons. First and foremost it implies that any criticism of the use of force as authorized by the President without the consent of Congress is itself "isolationist'. Moreover, Senator McCain has said that our "values" represent our vital national interests. With the exception of Ron Paul every candidate in the GOP field has supported action against Afghanistan and Iraq so to state they are being isolationist in assessing our current state of affairs is patently absurd.

As far as our values representing our vital national interests are concerned one must ask where is the line? Khadafy is a ritual human rights abuser and he did threaten a massacre in Benghazi. Ok, fair enough. Did Senator McCain call for us to bomb China after the massacre in Tienanmen Square? China's human rights record is as bad and frankly worse than Khadafy and we know they massacred their own people who had foisted a makeshift Statue of Liberty in that same square where they were murdered. No defense,no aid,no bombs for freedom loving Chinese wanting to live an American version of a free life? China's record is no better today, but where is the call to defend our "values" from Senators McCain and Graham? Well, seeing as how we must keep borrowing money from Chinese bankers to continue these excursions maybe that's why we have silence in that regard. Oh well, I guess dissenters in China's version of the gulag will have to wait for us to pay back their overlords before our enlightened Senators McCain and Graham look into their plight.
 
Senators McCain and Graham do not recognize the fundamentals of our place in the world. I will also post on this point in future, but in a nutshell our foreign policy has been adrift since the end of the cold war. Rather than a set of governing principles driving a consistent policy through administrations of both parties we have become largely reactionary in the administration of foreign affairs. In conducting ourselves in the international arena it is essential to have a consistent and coherent policy in determining the proper course of action as events dictate. It is policy that defines value(s). John McCain and Lindsey Graham are far more damaging to this nation in expressing their view of our place in the world because they have never placed a clear definition of what they consider our "values" and the limits in their defense.

Let me take this moment to state that like many I have definite reservations about the constitutionality of the "War Powers Act". In this respect I agree with McCain and Graham. Its constitutionality is not the point. I cannot see outside of Ron Paul supporters any mainstream elements of the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement who advocate retreating from the global stage. We all know the world wouldn't let us anyway. McCain and Graham are wrong because of the reflexive application of "isolationist" whenever anyone questions their as yet undefined policy based on our "values". Lindsey Graham actually said we need to "shut up" about Libya. Of course Lindsey Graham has a rather authoritarian view of dissent when its contrary to his sense of civility. You can see his views on free speech during wartime HERE.
 
Senator McCain as is often the case cites the isolationism of the 1930's as a perennial defense for refusing oversight into the application of force overseas. A history lesson for the Senator. It was not American isolationism that invited the Second World War, but European appeasement. If every American had a moral fervor to take on Imperial Japan over China or Nazi Germany over the Rhineland and Sudetenland just how far would we have gotten with Britain and France bending over backwards for Hitler? The notion that our unwillingness to fight a war in Europe aided and abetted the rise of the Nazis is also absurd. I seem to recall it was Neville Chamberlain, not Franklin Roosevelt who flew off to Munich in a frenzy to keep "peace in our time". Or did things play out differently in the history of McCain and Graham's Bizarro World?

McCain's citation of the 1930's as a parallel is all the more puzzling because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were wildly popular with the American people and for good reason. People were skeptical of Libya, but generally if mildly supportive. Does anyone even mention Yemen? The pre war, Depression era Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to a war overseas because they were often too busy trying to put food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. This attitude prevailed up to Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, why would any American willingly place their son on foreign shores to defend nations that were indifferent or ignorant of the immediate peril of imperial and fascist designs?

Americans today understand our place in the world better than John McCain and Lindsey Graham give us credit, but to label anyone who would question the degree of sacrifice as "isolationist" or by inference an "appeaser" does an injustice to those who demand accountability from those who compel the ultimate sacrifice of their sons and daughters. Why should Americans continue to have our tax dollars after ten years do no more than prop up a crook named Hamid Karzai who just yesterday referred to our troops as "occupiers"?

There actually is a valid reason for sustaining troop levels but is it so much to ask of our leaders that they spell it out? So far all we've imported from Afghanistan is heroin produced from the poppy fields of Karzai's brother. Our tax dollars at work. American lives fighting Al Qaeda and defending drug lords.

John McCain's assertion that Ronald Reagan would not approve of comments opposing force in Libya is at first foolish because it presumes an opinion upon the deceased. It is despicable because it defies Reagan's record. Reagan initiated what amounted to the final phase in winning the Cold War and toppling the Soviet Union. Without firing a shot. Ronald Reagan engaged American troops on three occasions. The first was Lebanon which resulted in a massacre of marines in their barracks. Reagan stated it was his worst decision. He invaded Grenada after its government was toppled with the aid of Castro within a few days of the car bomb in Beirut. He was criticized unfairly for using Grenada to distract from the debacle in Lebanon. Finally, he bombed Libya and nearly took out Khadafy himself. That was in response to the disco bombings in Germany. His actions against Libya went no further than that. No prolonged air war.No ground war. He sent his message. Citing Reagan is ridiculous.
       
John McCain and Lindsey Graham ought to be ashamed of their sophomoric interpretation of the GOP field of candidates. They should be embarrassed to tell anyone to "shut up" when lives are at stake. They should take a moment to educate themselves and reconsider false historic narratives in defense of their positions. The actions in doubt are worthy of debate and consideration regardless of where we come down, but McCain and Graham's comments are born of resentment of those in dissent. Obviously they never learned that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.