Obama said the Current Egyptian Regime is not an ally but not an enemy. I would say he is right, especially since the leader of that country was elected with the Islamic vote and does have to respond to the desires and thoughts of those voters, where Mubarak really didn't.
But hey, realizing that stuff isn't black and white is hard for some people, I know.
Ok. You can think what you want. Like I said earlier.
It's not open to gradients. It's not only black and white, it's a matter of law. Something that you would think a former constitutional law professor would place value in. Under current US law, Egypt is a major non-NATO ally, and shares the same status as Israel, Japan, Australia and South Korea.
With all due respect, you need to read this before you take this any further. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501706_1...pt-is-an-ally/
Edit, here's the video of the State Department statement.
Last edited by Merkava; 2012-09-14 at 09:52 AM.
And once again, you ignore an important word in the question asked. Here is a protip for you, Merkava, you can consider a nation an ally, but consider the newly appointed officials as less of an ally than the previous ones. I know you don't want to admit that this is possible, but it is. And goes once again to show that you need to read the actual question asked of Obama.
Protips? Lol. Listen kid, I admire your enthusiasm in wanting to defend Obama, but all you're doing is making yourself look silly. The State Department said there's been no change in the status of our relationship with Egypt. After the Muslim Brothers took power, no one, not even Obama suggested downgrading Egypt's status. And that remained the same until his interview with Telemundo.
Listen to NBC's chief foreign correspondent.
Let me leave you with this; the discussion is over. The Obama state department admitted that Obama was wrong. Jesus, look how miserable Victoria Nuland looks in the video I posted earlier. The state department has spoken on this. Obama himself has signed off on the surrender papers. This war is over. If you want to stay in the jungles and keep fighting, that's your business. But it's a loser for you. Obama was wrong.
Ooo calling me a 'kid'. What a great way to 'win' an argument.
I know there has been no change in our relationship status with Egypt. I know that we have gone to great lengths to get Egypt to keep its current treaties with Israel intact after the Muslim Brotherhood took power. What you don't seem to understand is that different elected people and parties can view different nations differently. Imagine that. Do you honestly think that the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be the same level of ally as Mubarak was?
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out how often someone on this board quoted Mitt Romney talking about the Olympics in London, wherein he stated that the issues that London struggled with were issues (stupid phrasing of a reasonable answer). His statement was taken as proof that he was a rude douche who didn't have a clue about foreign relations and should never be president because of it.
Then Obama says something stupid (stupid phrasing of a reasonable answer). And your reaction is to preemptively blame the Republicans?
I'd say it's more "correct" than "foolish".
---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 08:13 AM ----------
I don't think it's clear at all that the current Egyptian regime is an "ally" in the sense that people generally use the word. The State Department is referring to it in a strictly technical sense, which doesn't always jibe with general parlance.
Interviewer: Hey, belfpala, do you think the new chef at that restaurant you like is any good?
Belfpala: Well, I haven't been there since he started, so I can't say yes or no.
I don't see the difference. Sure, he should have said "We consider Egypt an ally as we move forward." But then they would have slammed him for that if the Brotherhood BS takes off any more than it has.
In other news, Kathleen Sebelius violates the Hatch Act, and the consequences are... nothing. FDA employees receive E-mails throughout the campaign season detailing what we are and aren't allowed to do as a result of the Act, yet the head of the HHS can violate the act with absolute impunity. Sebelius is a transparently political hack, not remotely qualified to run the HHS, shouldn't have been hired in the first place, and is now getting away with violating rules that lower employees would be fired for.
I'm not at all sure why this is a big deal.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
The people who post in this thread are exceptional. We're paying attention. When I bring up some of the topics discussed here with real life people, mostly they have absolutely no clue.
That disturbs me. What they do know is so clearly slanted by what few soundbites they've heard.