http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/provisions-relevant-to-the-situation-in-egypt-in-the-fy12-state-department-and-foreign-operations-appropriations-law_--

there aren't exceptions to it. and fudging around and claiming it's not a coup is ridiculous. If this President abjures the law in this case, it sets a pretty lousy precedent, no?

And the massacre of over 50 civilians this morning by the military is another factor.

As a matter of enforcement of US law it will be bright-line.

And if Obama drags his feet or muddies the waters then he is failing in his duty to uphold the law. I get that.

And if Congress impeached him for refusing to uphold the law I would say, "It's a fair cop... he did not, in fact, uphold the law."


I also get that it could be desirable, from a long-term progressive view, to not pressure Egypt to restore the deposed regime and that slow-walking the aid question through a blizzard of double-talk may be the best thing.

For instance, it gives us substantial leverage on dictating what the coup does -- leverage that would be lost in a quick and bright-line determination.

In a show-down with Congress, of course Obama has to and will follow the law. But I am not outraged by the finesse here.


I am also not upset in the least by Leahy pressuring the WH. He is performing his job as legislator and as progressive conscience keeper. He is doing what he is supposed to do.

As for the massacre... it contains very little information about who should be in power in Egypt today. Would a massacre on the other side prove that the first side should be in power?

The moral weight of massacres is great, as events and actions, but proving one side is wrong doesn't prove the other side is right.

I doubt that either side is RIGHT by my standards so the determination will be practical, rather than idealistic, in every scenario.

There are no white hats here.

perhaps the most important aspect of this.

Say under a Republican president there's a military coup of a democratically elected left wing government in South America ( I know, wild speculation, like that would ever happen) and the President refuses to cut off aid using this as precedent.

bright-lines do not work well in foreign affairs. They really don't, and history is full of the wreckage wrought by such lines.

I am not arguing from deep and settled conviction here. I am thinking aloud about some very tricky stuff, and with great personal ethical disquiet on all sides.

When we say, "Don't cross this line or else..." then you have granted the other party tremendous power to force you to do the "or else" at his whim.

The moral hazard of the example, the precedent, of letting someone get away with something is real. And when you can control the overall situation you use such strict-liability rules to good effect. But in international affairs people don't have the same way of looking at problems. There is no unitary world-view. Nations do inexplicable stuff.

So locking yourself in is seldom wise.

On the other hand, reagan thought aiding all sorts of fascists was good, no matter what Congress said. I get that.

If Obama's directs aid to Egypt secretly, diverts funds, sends underlings to perjure themselves, etc.. then his ass is in the pan on merit.

And if his motive were to protect the contracts of some defnese contractoirs, then fuck him, of course.

But of course an administration will play for time in this situation. It is probably wise to do so. I am not talking about years of covert and defiant aid. I am talking about why the (fully expected) WH double-talk in the immediate term is not a terrible thing about Obama.

I'll kick Obama all day for a lot of things, but not for failing to be precipitous in a very dynamic and murky situation.

I am not talking about a constitutional show-down here. (Was any particular aid delivered this morning? Aren't we talking about the future here?) I am saying give them a few days.

its the fact that if aid is cut off it will reduce the profitability of the MIC with whom most of the aid is spent.

I don't consider that established certain fact as the primary motivation, though I do consider it as a factor, of course.

He doesn't have my back on Social Security.

But at some point a firm decision, explanation, and direction is needed.

of course you may know more than Senator Leahy who's been in the Senate for 38 years and chairs the committee that deals with that aid.

Foreign policy situations there should be a grace period as each situation is unique and has extreme importance and effect on the global community.

and isn't the government breaking the law always worse than when an individual does so? I hope I don't have to spell out why that's the case.

Decide to give aid or not.

I added, which I think, that Leahy is doing precisely the right thing.

It is his job, his conscience, and what he SHOULD be doing.

I do not think the WH can sit on this question forever, and heat should be applied.