State Department Explains Why Obama Won’t Call Egypt a Coup


Obama Pharoah

It’s the same explanation that I gave in my post-Morsi article, Barack’s Plan B for the Brotherhood. Obama wants to use foreign aid as a lever and to do that, he can’t call it a coup. He just has to begin squeezing Egypt with selective holds.

After a lot of back and forths, Jen Psaki, Team Obama spokesman for State, gets around to admitting it.

MS. PSAKI: If not, you can ask another question. Six hundred and fifty million – there’s been some confusion, I’m not necessarily saying from this room, on what it means. I made the important point, or what I think is an important point, that at no point are funds transferred to Egyptian control. They’re transferred to an Egypt account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That would be – the next step would be to transfer the remaining unobligated $585 million to that account.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So Jen, just to be super precise –

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: — the President, without saying it is or it is not a coup, could put aid to Egypt on hold based on this policy review?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the President has always had a range of options from the beginning. The best way I can explain it is there is a legal review and there’s a policy review – legal, it’s abiding by our legal obligations. And as I mentioned – and sorry to go back through this, but I think it’s important here – there are certain programs – in ESF, there are some programs in there as an example that we’d have to – we have to – we might have to adjust, depending. But that review is ongoing. But the President can certainly make decisions regarding – related to our relationship with Egypt and funding that we provide, absolutely.

QUESTION: Okay. Because this is kind of a big – now a very important moment here where you’re saying he can avoid making any decision on a coup but he could still stop the aid in one form or another. I mean, it might not be all, whatever.ns, absolutely.

You can see why Obama won’t make a coup declaration. This is his kind of tactic. Maintain total control, avoid being bound by any regulatory framework.

  • JoJoJams

    While it might technically be a “coup”, in that the military overthrew Morsi, the reality on the ground is that it was the will of the majority of the Egyptian people, as Morsi and the brotherhood were changing the constitution to solidify their power (one vote, one time…), and there was an increase in enforcement of a more medieval sharia, including widespread persecution of the Coptic Christians of Egypt. The truly more “moderate” muslims (and there are…basically muslims who don’t follow the barbaric codes of their religion, and are more modernized) as well as the Copts, comprising a larger majority than the brotherhood, wanted the military to oust Morsi and the brotherhood – it was the only way. In this way, this was NOT a “coup” in the traditional sense, which would be the military overthrowing a government simply for their own power, with no input from the people. This is a huge difference, and I would hope others can see that as well. Not only have I seen this for myself, but my Coptic friends from and in Egypt have literally begged me to “get the word out” regarding this aspect of it, as they are mortified the western media seems intent on labeling this a “coup” without the clarification that it’s what the majority of the people wanted. In short, while I loathe the policies and ideologies of Herr Obama, in this one aspect of refusing to call this a “coup”, I completely agree with, though, I’m sure, for vastly different reasons. Sincerely.

    • Moa

      Thanks for the post.

      It is clear that what happened in Egypt is best described as a “Popular Revolution” where the Egyptian Army carried out the will of the people (which was clear given the massive number of signatures on the petition opposing Morsi).

      Decades ago the Democrats would have supported such a “Popular Revolution”. Now the Democrats have moved past the point of socialism, and even past the point of Stalinism (Big State against the people), they are now at the stage where they promote religious theocracies against a secular populace (provided the theocracy is not Christian nor Jewish; Islamic supremacists are the International Socialist’s [eg. Democrat] pets for the moment). It is ironic how the Democrats rail against conservatives for their embrace of Christianity (despite the conservatives keeping Church and State separate) yet the Democrats are all for the supremacist ideology of Islamic theocracy.

      If the Democrats cared about minorities they would help the Copts. They don’t care about minorities except as a talking point to bash anyone standing in their way.

      Looks like the Copts are going to have to stick up for themselves. This is going to get very messy (the Copts may be outnumbered by Egyptian Muslims; but the Copts outnumber the Salafis and Brotherhood hard core; once the Copts realise that then the Copts may remember that Christ warned he’d bring a sword next time he visited).

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “…in this one aspect of refusing to call this a “coup”, I completely agree with him, though, I’m sure he did it for vastly different reasons.”

      Agreed. We don’t so much agree with him as celebrate the fact that he can’t decide what to do next. The less he does, the better. Our enemies already know he won’t harm them, so we now want to keep him from harming us so much.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Calling it a coup would be more or less the same kind of decision as defining a “red line” for Iran. 0′Bama doesn’t have the guts or the discretion.

    He’s not cut out for leadership. He’s just a class-warrior. He can lead the shock troops in his socialist class war. Come to think of it, that seems to be all he does now.

  • ATM

    It is ridicules to attempt to change the meaning of a word. The people of the United States do not want the president to make these decisions anymore, because the result is always the same. Perhaps there is a question about the spirit of the law here, but we should not attempt to change the meaning of words.