Another Obama Admin FAIL. Cannot, Will not, determine Egyptian coup

[ivwshane]

Lol, we opposed the coup before we supported the coup.

The law is clear, this just fits the Obama administrations habit of ignoring/breaking laws they don't like. It also fits the habit of Obama supporters dancing to find an excuse to support his illegal activities.

Another failure by you to read the thread and understand the facts that have been presented.

 

[Genx87]

how it is old news? story came out today.

I made a thread about this topic about 2 weeks ago.

 

[HomerJS]

http://freebeacon.com/psaki-we-have-determined-that-we-do-not-need-to-make-a-determination-on-egypt/

Psaki: ‘We Have Determined That We Do Not Need to Make a Determination’ on Egypt

This is our state department people. What a bunch of morons. But its typical coming from liberals, they hate labels, hate making though choices, because that choice might be wrong.

Everything in their world is so gray, so muddled that now it has lead to total brain paralysis.

and everything in your mind is so black and white.

Your either for us or agin us...

Your peeps have made living befriending dictators until they don't play puppet and then we have to take them out.

Trying to define down foriegn policy to the level of Honey Boo-boo is just short sighted.

 

[berzerker60]

This is bullshit. Why do we give a fuck what Egypt does? And why the fuck are we sending "aid" to them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Egypt_barrier

 

[Exterous]

Egypt is about as useful to us as tits are to a mule.

Yep - we, in no way, rely on a global economy that can be largely impacted by who controls the Suez Canal and who\what can pass through it. It would only impact 7.5% of the total world's trade and most of the oil shipments to Europe which is so strong financially this would in no way impact them. And there is certainly no connection to the economies in Europe with the economy of the US. Our Navy has never transited the Suez canal to conduct operations in the Middle East nor would its closure to the US mean a vastly more lengthy cruise around the horn of Africa. Nope, nothing useful to us at all...

 

[drebo]

Again, bullshit.

The Middle East provides us nothing we can't get ourselves. The US has the world's largest oil shale deposits and between the US, Canada, and South America, we have more than enough oil.

The Middle East is even more useless to us than Egypt is.

We need to start minding our own fucking business.

Also, Israel? Rofl. We should have ignored that clusterfuck 15 years ago. The country Israel is not a functioning country if not for the billions of dollars we give them. They produce nothing we need or could not produce ourselves. Again, we need to mind our own fucking business.

 

[werepossum]

Old news, and also bizarre to act like this is about "stupid" rather than "squaring a political circle." They don't want to be defending the terrible, corrupt Muslim Brotherhood government by punishing the new boss with cut off aid, yet they have to do exactly that if they determine it's a coup. It obviously is a coup, so they just don't make a statement about whether it's a coup or not.

What do you suggest they do? Lie about it being a coup? Call it a coup but violate the law and give aid anyway? Cut off aid and fuck the new regime, which already doesn't like us that much, in order to stand up for the corrupt and widely hated Muslim Brotherhood?

Pretty much.

I think this part of a disturbing trend. The Obama admin is ignoring the law. No matter how inconvenient it should not be done. What kind of precedent or example does this set for the rest of us? Why the h3ll should I follow the law?

I think Obama should have done one of two things:

1. Make a ruling that it was Morsi who was perpetrating a coup. I think his changing of the constitution, declaring himself above the judicial branch and moving to abolish term limits thereby setting himself up as a dictator for life is tantamount to a coup. IMO, it's nothing short of overturning the govt that existed upon his taking of office.

2. Call it a coup and have Congress vote to continue funding in this case. I don't believe that would have been difficult at all.

I find it disturbing that Obama chooses to ignore the law when compliance is simple and easy.

Fern

I don't disagree with this in principle, especially the first choice, but what happens if Obama declares it a coup and then Congress fails to act? For that matter, why is it better for Congress to ignore the law than for Obama?

 

[woolfe9998]

To add to your point; the reason the admin may not be declaring this a coup is to incentivize the military to push for new elections and get democracy going again sooner rather than later.

Well, that would be a reason to declare it a coup actually. The entire purpose of this law, as I understand it, is to do just that - to hold aid hostage after a coup in order to encourage democratic elections. What I suspect is going on here is that the administration doesn't want to make a formal declaration of aid suspension right now to avoid antagonizing the Egyptians. They have, however, likely communicated to them in private that they need to hold elections sooner rather than later because eventually our law will prevent us from supplying aid if they do not.

This is also likely why they aren't asking Congress to make an exception here, because doing that would disincentivize the Egyptians holding elections, and it would also suggest that the US supported the coup. It's a very difficult situation we're in right now. We support the more pro-western faction who conducted the coup against an Islamist regime we did not like. However, we can't be seen as supporting the forced ouster of a democratically elected regime. I'm not sure if there is a better way to handle this diplomatically right now.

In any event, my main point is that failing to call this a "coup" right now isn't illegal since we are not currently supplying aid.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9998]

In further support of my point, I see that we were scheduled to deliver the Egyptian military 4 f-16's last week and the administration cancelled the shipment, stating it's because we have not yet made a determination as to whether this was a "coup" or not:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/24/pentagon-delays-sale-f-16s-to-egypt/

I know that our monetary aid was disbursed in May, but I'm guessing sales of arms could be considered "aid" under the law. Accordingly, the administration is trying to avoid violating the law here.

If someone here still thinks that what the administration is doing is illegal, that person needs to present evidence that we have actually supplied aid to Egypt since the day Morsi was ousted.

 

[Exterous]

The Middle East provides us nothing we can't get ourselves.

Except a shortcut from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea

The US has the world's largest oil shale deposits and between the US, Canada, and South America, we have more than enough oil.

Yes but the US participates in the global trade of oil. Therefore if the global price of oil goes up people in the US have to pay more for oil based products to keep the oil here instead of being bought elsewhere

 

[drebo]

Except a shortcut from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea



Yes but the US participates in the global trade of oil. Therefore if the global price of oil goes up people in the US have to pay more for oil based products to keep the oil here instead of being bought elsewhere

Which is about as relevant as the price of tea in China.

The US buying oil from places other than OPEC has nothing to do with how much the US pays for said oil, because, as you said, the price of oil is globally set.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Which is about as relevant as the price of tea in China.

The US buying oil from places other than OPEC has nothing to do with how much the US pays for said oil, because, as you said, the price of oil is globally set.

If oil transportation out of the region is disrupted then global oil supply is reduced. Obviously you understand basic principals of supply and demand. Then again, maybe not.

 

[drebo]

If oil transportation out of the region is disrupted then global oil supply is reduced. Obviously you understand basic principals of supply and demand. Then again, maybe not.

How does that have anything to do with the US not having access to the Suez Canal?

Surely there are other shipping companies based in other companies that would ship the oil.

The US is neither the World's errand boy nor the World's police.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds like someone is trying to not stir the pot and winds up sounding stupid.

 

[Fern]

Pretty much.


I don't disagree with this in principle, especially the first choice, but what happens if Obama declares it a coup and then Congress fails to act? For that matter, why is it better for Congress to ignore the law than for Obama?

What do you mean by your reference to Congress? What law are they ignoring?

Fern

 

[CitizenKain]

http://freebeacon.com/psaki-we-have-determined-that-we-do-not-need-to-make-a-determination-on-egypt/

Psaki: ‘We Have Determined That We Do Not Need to Make a Determination’ on Egypt

This is our state department people. What a bunch of morons. But its typical coming from liberals, they hate labels, hate making though choices, because that choice might be wrong.

Everything in their world is so gray, so muddled that now it has lead to total brain paralysis.

Whoa, michal1980 is confused on how the world works, what a surprise.

 

[Thebobo]

This is bullshit. Why do we give a fuck what Egypt does? And why the fuck are we sending "aid" to them?

Suez Canal have a lot to do with this?

 

[Fern]

In further support of my point, I see that we were scheduled to deliver the Egyptian military 4 f-16's last week and the administration cancelled the shipment, stating it's because we have not yet made a determination as to whether this was a "coup" or not:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/24/pentagon-delays-sale-f-16s-to-egypt/

I know that our monetary aid was disbursed in May, but I'm guessing sales of arms could be considered "aid" under the law. Accordingly, the administration is trying to avoid violating the law here.

If someone here still thinks that what the administration is doing is illegal, that person needs to present evidence that we have actually supplied aid to Egypt since the day Morsi was ousted.

Looks like no aid scheduled until next Spring:

What would happen if we did cut off military aid? Probably not much at first. Military aid to Egypt for 2013 was already disbursed back in May, and there likely wouldn’t be another round of funding until next spring. But cutting off aid would certainly reshape the U.S.-Egypt relationship — and mark a big break from the past 65 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1-5-billion-a-year-in-aid-heres-what-it-does/

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

And why the fuck are we sending "aid" to them?

we pay israel and egypt not to fight each other

 

[woolfe9998]

Looks like no aid scheduled until next Spring:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1-5-billion-a-year-in-aid-heres-what-it-does/

Fern

Right. I assume that you would now modify your position that the administration is breaking the law here? The law says no aid after a coup. There isn't any. It says nothing about having to make an immediate determination. So long as the determination is made before aid is dispersed, everything seems to be kosher here.

 

[Fern]

Right. I assume that you would now modify your position that the administration is breaking the law here? The law says no aid after a coup. There isn't any. It says nothing about having to make an immediate determination. So long as the determination is made before aid is dispersed, everything seems to be kosher here.

I think I said they're "ignoring it".

I still think they are ignoring it. My understanding of their position is that the law is faulty, and due to how it's written they need not make a "determination". The logic in this position, if correct, would apply whether or not aid is now due.

It's curious the admin can't simply say "well, no aid is due until next Spring, so we're under no pressure to make a decision ATM. It may be that democratic rule will be restored by Spring thus rendering the entire issue moot" etc. If fact, this position strikes as advantageous and something that would be applauded as it puts pressure on the military to transition to democratic.

I do not like the 'just ignore the law' position they seem to have taken. The admin did with the Libyan situation among others. It's a bad habit.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

I think I said they're "ignoring it".

I still think they are ignoring it. My understanding of their position is that the law is faulty, and due to how it's written they need not make a "determination". The logic in this position, if correct, would apply whether or not aid is now due.

It's curious the admin can't simply say "well, no aid is due until next Spring, so we're under no pressure to make a decision ATM. It may be that democratic rule will be restored by Spring thus rendering the entire issue moot" etc. If fact, this position strikes as advantageous and something that would be applauded as it puts pressure on the military to transition to democratic.

I do not like the 'just ignore the law' position they seem to have taken. The admin did with the Libyan situation among others. It's a bad habit.

Fern

I went back and reread all your remarks, in context. I don't think you realized that there was no illegality here until I pointed out that no aid is currently flowing. You argued that the statute was clear: if a, then b. You were correct. The problem is that the statute is inapplicable at the moment. It isn't even truly being "ignored" until it actually applies. You also wondered why this wasn't taken to Congress, as if it needed to be in order to be legal. Having Congress make an exception here sends the message to the Egyptians that they can take their time in holding elections, and says to the rest of the world that we supported a coup against a democratically elected government.

As to your opinion that they should have explained it more clearly, I think it's clear that how they are messaging this is entirely for diplomatic reasons. They are trying to walk a line between supporting the military regime and not coming off as approving of a coup, while at the same time they want to pressure the regime to hold elections or WE look bad for not condemning the coup (much). Spelling it all out sends a message that we really do support the regime and its coup. It's saying, look, we don't have to condemn our allies because happily it isn't necessary right now. Remember, we are trying to message this as neither supporting nor condemning what happened, meaning that the less said, the better. I'm not sure you appreciate that this is a difficult situation from a diplomatic standpoint, that this coup put us in a bad position.

Sometimes diplomacy comes across strangely to people who are not its intended audience. People on a discussion board trying to determine the legality of their actions is not their audience. I'm not going to second guess the messaging unless it becomes clear that it isn't the right way to go about it.

 

[LightPattern]

I went back and reread all your remarks, in context.

Bravo. Seriously..if more people did this it would save so many otherwise lost human brain processing hours.

 

[Exterous]

The US buying oil from places other than OPEC has nothing to do with how much the US pays for said oil, because, as you said, the price of oil is globally set.

Areas like western Europe buy oil from OPEC because it is cheaper and faster for them. Distance has a huge impact on cost and throughput and the Suez Canal drastically lowers the distance traveled which improves throughput. If the Suez Canal is closed throughput is strangled and distance skyrockets. Western European countries (among others) have to look elsewhere to buy oil and pay more for it. They may also have to pay a premium to keep the oil from being shipped to places that could buy it cheaper while at the same time oil shipments take longer to arrive. The number of tankers is very slow to change so availability of tankers to meet the increased volume needed to be 'in transit' becomes a consideration

Rising transportation costs + decreased throughput + decreased available shipping + customers willing (needing) to pay more = higher prices for everyone participating in the market

History is pretty clear that what affects the price of OPEC's oil affects what we pay for ours

Surely there are other shipping companies based in other companies that would ship the oil.

For massively increased costs which causes the worlds oil prices to rise. You also don't instantly get oil pipelines and tanker facilities in other countries when the Suez Canal gets closed. Even for those that exist the capacity to handle all or even most of the increased demand from those locations isn't there

 

[werepossum]

What do you mean by your reference to Congress? What law are they ignoring?

Fern

If Obama is ignoring a law requiring him to stop aid upon a coup taking place, then Congress passing an exception would be ignoring the same law.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I really do not like the Obama administration's habit and pattern of ignoring laws they find inconvenient. On the other hand, I often do agree with the rationale in individual cases. So I find myself generally opposed in principle, but often grudgingly agreeing in practice. This is a prime example. In principle, I want the President to follow the law. I also do not want to alienate or weaken one of the very few pro-American forces in the region. If I had to make the decision, this probably what I would have done, studiously avoid admitting the obvious. I also like your (I think) suggestion about declaring Morsi's actions effectively a coup, relegating this to counter-coup. I would imagine though that the lifers at State are hesitant to openly do so as it removes a great deal of the pressure to restore democracy. Once officially granted, legitimacy is hard to remove.