Oh. In that case your argument is even weaker than I thought. Unless, that is, you are willing to agree that Obama was elected fraudulently, too.
Missed the edit window.
It should also be pointed out that when you say “fraud” you mean “something that isn’t actually fraud”. Again, A is not A. A convenient place to start when the facts are lined up against you.
Perhaps then you would be decent enough to post the rest of the same post you are citing where I point out context and explain that the coup against Morsi was a military coup but should not necessarily need to be classified as a coup to meet the standard set in the US law.
I have never denied that it was a military coup and my views that it should not be regarded as one for purposes of continuing aid has been repeatedly explained.
You have repeated claimed that I denied that a military coup took place. That is not true even when you cite a small snippet from my posts.
!!“While technically a coup the fair and wise use of that concept in revolutionary Egypt should not and need not apply because of extraordinary circumstances as to why Morsi deserved and needed to be taken down.”!!
Isn’t that splitting hairs? “Oh, it was a coup, definitely, but the law that says that we don’t give aid to countries that had military coups doesn’t apply because Morsi totally deserved it.” The problem is, the law doesn’t make those distinctions. Maybe it should. Maybe it’s a bad law. Maybe it’s in our interest to support the military overthrow of total bastards. But you can’t just handwave the problem away like that by saying “The law doesn’t apply because I don’t want it to apply.”
That is false. There are many ways to commit fraud. Election fraud is not the only one. Fraud can be saying one thing to get elected and doing the opposite after getting elected. In an established democracy that fraud is likely to be countered before the election. Millions demonstrated to have that fraud that Morsi pulled during the infancy of their first free elections removed. Do you deny the millions that took to the streets calling for Morsi to be removed did so in part because they believe Morsi lied about his Islamist anti-democratic objectives?
Are you trying to tell me that a politician said one thing during an election, and then did the opposite when he was elected? Unprecedented!! Unheard of!!! Off with his head!!! (Unless his name is Obama, of course.)
If you’re going to use the term fraud in a legal sense, as in justifying legal action like being forcibly removed from office, then you’re going to have to stick by the legal definition.
Sorry, but A is A. I know that can be extremely inconvenient, but that’s just the way it is.
Indeed, his case against Morsi’s election being valid has always been that Morsi lied to get votes, which of course makes every election in recorded history invalid. Of course I’m sure NfbW could explain why campaign promises by Obama are fine and dandy, but Bush Sr. should have had tanks rolling on him at the White House to negate the results of his election and made him resign in a very non-military coup like affair because he said “Read my lips: No new taxes.”
I’m curious what it is about me that vexes him so that NfbW replies to my same post twice about an hour apart. What makes it bizarre is that it hasn’t happened once or even twice, this is the third time in this thread he’s responded twice to a single post of mine.
It’s not just you. He does that to almost everyone. When you’re just making stuff up, there’s no telling when some new tidbit will pop into your head.
Call it what you like. The point is those posters who claimed that I deny that it was a military coup are wrong. First they should admit they are wrong and then we can have the discussion as you are framing it.
First you have an error when you suggest that I favored hand waving the wording in the law away. That is not true.
My argument is that extraordinary circumstances in Egypt do not necessarily mean that this specific military coup over the elected Morsi government fits the literal definition of a duly elected government for many reasons:
Morsi did not have established powers and authority over the military as Presidents and PMs etc, of established democracies do.
Morsi’s did not disentangle his political apparatus from it association with terrorists.
Morsi was stacking the first freely elected government excessively with Islamists - leading millions including some who voted for him to believe he was steering the revolution from freedom and democratic principles toward theocracy.
So the revolutionaries had a second revolt and fortunate for them the military is on their side.
It the way the Egyptians chose to deal the thirty years of tyranny the overthrew.
I have absolutely no problem with their choices and will be greatly relieved if a destructive civil war will be averted. And I think right now it looks like it will be averted and democratic rule will prevail over theocracy.
Is there ever a time when there is a military coup and the president does have control of the military?
You forgot the most important reason. Moris is not Scottish.
Of course I do.
What you’re doing IS handwaving the law away. You’re changing the conditions. You’re saying “It doesn’t count because it’s not an established democracy”, and "It doesn’t count because “It doesn’t count because Morsi didn’t have control over the military” and “It doesn’t count because Morsi had ties to terrorism” and “It doesn’t count because Morsi wanted to set up a theocracy.”
But that’s not what the law says. I agree with you. Mohammed Morsi is an evil son of a bitch who wants to set up a theocratic state that oppresses religious minorities and bring Islamic terror to the region. He also was the democratically elected ruler elected by the Egyptian people. And they turned against him, and the military overthrow was pretty popular.
But, the law says what the law says. The law says we don’t get to support military governments that do that. Even if it turns out that the guy who was elected is an evil theocratic terrorist son of a bitch, the law says that if the military overthrows him, the government loses aid until it has free elections. Even if we like the military government and hate the democratic government. It’s a remarkably stupid law. Its an insanely stupid law that’s detrimental to US foreign policy. But that’s the law, even though it’s a bad one.
Has there ever been a democratically elected government where the head of state does not have legitimate effective control over that state’s military?
That is what I said about Morsi prior to the military coup that deposed him.
What a silly question. Of course a successful coup leave the fallen leader out of control of the military.
The point I am making is the military coup of Morsi didn’t really change who was running the military and by default the nation, at all.
Morsi was a duly elected figurehead who overplayed his hand by trying to put the military in a more pro/Islamist structure.
He failed.
Come on. You didn’t see the amendment to the law where it said that for aid to be stopped, the coup has to happen while the president has control over the military?
You do realize that the new constitution still maintains the clause where the military, not the president, appoints the defense minister, don’t you? So, whoever is elected president in the next election will not be “democratically elected”, right?
Someone cue some music. The next dance is about to begin!
But if a law is stupid, and everyone knows it’s stupid, doesn’t that mean that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using a loophole to circumvent the law in question?
I don’t think it’s remotely accurate to say that “everyone knows” this law is stupid.
If everyone really did “know” that, then it would be trivial to have it changed. Is there even anyone trying to?
I reply to you repeatedly because you can’t get my messages right and then you disappear just like now.
I have not said the election was invalid because Morsi lied to get votes. I am saying the revolution did not end when Morsi lied about his intent to be a moderate leader and have respect for the principles of the revolution and was elected, trusted, to carry that moderation forward into the very first freely elected government after thirty years of dictatorship under Mubarak. Morsi failed the election promises and he failed the revolution.
That is my point that no one including you are willing to discuss. Instead you
focus with the silly posters on one snippet about politicians lying to get elected as if there is no difference in 2008 USA And 2012-13 revolutionary times in Egypt.
If you disagree with the fact that millions of revolutionaries in Egypt were upset with Morsi’s significant and historically eventful bait and switch, then explain yourself.
I don’t see a similarity in the usual rounds if political
Exaggerations in our elections to be as drastically dangerous to democracy as Morsi’s deception was in Egypt.
There is a connection to anti-Democratic terrorism and violence with Morsi that does not exist here. And would not be tolerated if it did.
Our Democracy is established enough to impeach such a connection. Egypt’s democracy is in a state that could not impeach or wait as John Mace wants. They did what they could and now the revolution continues until it gets done right.
I thought the U.S. Congress stopped trying to change laws a few years back, once they realized it couldn’t be done.
Law already has its slight degrees of flexibility within in them when it comes to the laws intent. It does not take a genius legal mind to see that the intent was to protect established democracies from being overthrown by the military and then continuing the aid to the generalissi-Larry-Curly-Moe now in charge.
Egypt’s duly elected government’s situation did need not be locked into that ‘duly elected’ definition when the law’s intent is considered. The aid was more or less being delivered to and through the Egyptian military who were really the only true power in Egypt the whole time. They weren’t on paper but the were in power since Mubarak turned power over to them.
Interpreting law in accordance with new and unforeseen realities is not necessarily skirting the law. And that is why Congress easily passed continuing aid to Egypt for the rest of this year despite s military coup of a duly elected government.