SmashMouth

The State Department, cutting through the confusion over President Obama's claim that Egypt is not a U.S. ally, contradicted his characterization Thursday.
For the record, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, Egypt is considered a major non-NATO ally.



The comment came as White House aides also carefully clarified the president's remarks.
The president made the initial statement in an interview with the Spanish-language Telemundo. "I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we do not consider them an enemy," Obama said, reacting to the ongoing and intense demonstrations outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
The comment raised eyebrows, considering that Egypt - at least before the fall of Hosni Mubarak -- has long been among the top U.S. allies in the Middle East along with Saudi Arabia and Israel. And legally, it is still considered a major "non-NATO" ally, as Nuland confirmed.
Nuland and White House aides, though, tried to at the same time suggest that Obama was referring to the fact that Egypt is not part of any formal NATO treaty.
"'Ally' is a legal term of art. We don't have a mutual defense treaty with Egypt like we do with our NATO allies. But as the president has said, Egypt is long-standing and close partner of the United States, and we have built on that foundation by supporting Egypt's transition to democracy and working with the new government," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.


Read more: State Department corrects Obama, says Egypt is an ally | Fox News

Danno

The incompetence is monumental.

SmashMouth

Cruize

Palistan is an "ally." They were hiding Osama. These countries are "allies" in name only mostly due to the fact that we are sending them billions in aid. We are not getting a good return on our money.

saintfan

Well for once we agree.

arsaint

Aid should be inversely proportionate to the way we and our citizens are treated.

Right now, they'd get nothing and rotate on it...

saintfan

I was talking with my liberal friend here at work a while back about the "Arab Spring" and also with my Russian friend.

Liberal Friend: Yeah! Power to the people!

Me: Well, we are replacing relatively stability (the devil that we know) with an unknown - the devil we don't know. This may very well offer an inlet where the radicals find some level of legitimacy.

Russian Friend: What have these leaders (speaking of Libya particularly but in general overall) done to the United States, specifically? Be careful what you wish for.

I continue to believe what I have always believed where these people are concerned. There are two options, and I'm mostly all for either one:

1) Declare war. Real war. Not the war either Bush declared - the one Obama's policies will make even worse - but REAL war. Identify the enemy and beat him until he capitulates. Because that's the only way you win a war. All this "we will win their hearts and minds" crap is beyond ignorant. It's stupid. Identify those who are the enemy. Partner with those who are not. Tell everybody else to either jump in or go to hell. Declare the war. Win the war.

Or

2) Come the **** home. If we don't have a pair big enough or an interest great enough to do what it takes to solve the problem, then we have no business getting involved. Stay neutral until Iran fires weapons at Israel and then use that as the spring board to kill them all. Fine. So be it.

Either way. Simple. As things are now my Russian friend and I are pretty much on the same page. My liberal friend has no basis for his beliefs beyond the value he places on an uprising of the people. He cannot see beyond his own agenda.

My preference is we pull out our people. Pull our funding - all of it - and come the **** home. Let it go to hell, and when it gets so bad that we have to step in, we can end it (and all of them) just like we ended WWII. We might not even have to put a boot on the ground.

Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel...