GOP Members Of Congress Hold Surreal Press Conference In Egypt Thanking Military For

Let me see if I have this straight.

Bachmann, King, and Gohmert make a video praising military coup that ousted a democratically elected leader because, well, that seems a bit unclear.

Apparently they do not like the Muslim Brotherhood. Now given the blatant and ongoing bigotry that these three constantly espouse regarding Islam, and the history of at least Bachmann and Gohmert completely fabricating associations between folks and the Muslim Brotherhood, these three democratically elected politicians are praising a military ouster of a democratically elected leader?

Really?

Now I don't think that anyone could argue that Egypt is not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up mess, but given the chance to keep their mouths shut or say something incredibly stupid, why did these three opt for stupid? Why woudl anyone support a military coup over democracy?

http://www.businessinsider.com/michele-bachmann-louie-gohmert-steve-king-egypt-2013-9

Republican representatives Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Steve King (R-Iowa) held a press conference last week in Egypt, praising and thanking the Egyptian military for a July 3 ouster of what Bachmann called the "common enemy" Muslim Brotherhood.

Via the Washington Post's Max Fisher comes video of the press conference, which is bizarre, to say the least.

Bachmann thanked the Egyptian military for the coup and the military-led government's crackdowns on protests, implying that the Muslim Brotherhood — of which former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a member — was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"We were cheering in front of our televisions back home in the United States,” Bachmann said, referring to when the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi. "We were cheering for you."

Bachmann, who took the lead in the press conference, said that the three members of Congress agreed that Morsi's ouster was not a "coup," but rather the "people of Egypt [giving] their voice loud and clear."

"Many of you have asked, Do we understand who the enemy is? We can speak for ourselves: We do. We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed, here, for the people of Egypt," Bachmann said. "We’ve seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood posed around the world. We stand against this great evil. We remember who caused nine-one-one in America."

Their unconditional support is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. There is no reliable estimate of how many have been killed in the army-led crackdowns since Morsi's ouster, but estimates as of last week put the number somewhere between 1,000 and 8,000.

In response to the bloodshed, President Barack Obama has suspended a biannual joint military exercise, and has threatened pulling more military aid.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/michele-bachmann-louie-gohmert-steve-king-egypt-2013-9#ixzz2eJhozUXU

 

Too bad no one overthrew the democratically elected government of the National Socialist German Worker's Party when they assumed power in 1932 elections and became the largest parliamentary faction in the Weimar Republic government thereby making Adolph Hitler Chancellor.
The world could have been saved much grief, death and destruction. A democratically elected government is not a guarantee of a moral or just government.

And when Muslim Brotherhood affiliated president Mohamed Morsi of Egypt starts to grab unlimited power for himself and grant himself the ability to stay in power indefinitely "for the good" of Egypt and to legislate without any review or recourse (that's a dictatorship) then, like in Germany in the 30's,
the world has a problem.
Thankfully in this case the people in Egypt began to protest and revolt and the military stepped in and removed this tyrant before it became too late.

So Bachmann, King and Gohmert are the problem here somehow? Or is the real problem a long standing bug up the ass over whatever Bachmann and Gohmert (mostly) do? Frankly I had no idea such a video existed and don't think the world will stop spinning because of it.

But apparently the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates a world caliphate under Islam, and a dictatorship in Egypt (once again one of the few secular nations in the Middle East and not rabidly anti West) is not to be abhorred but an unknown video is? Seems sick to me and a horribly partisan ordering of priorities. Such partisan sickness is the root of many, many evils.

 

Hitler wasn't democratically elected to be chancellor....

 

That's not what every source I can access says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
See for yourself. The problem is ignorantly declaring that Morsi's rule was democratic.
It was anything but and the people of Egypt did not riot and revolt when he began to grab non revocable power for himself for the fun of it.

 

Maybe we need our military to dispose of such reps like Bachmann, King and Gohmert .... All those people are right wing extremists who are not much better than Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Ignorance is not understanding what you are talking about.

So his chancellorship was an appointment. Guess how he got to be the dictator.....

 

The Nazi Party was the most popular in Germany in 1932. Your comment is ironic considering you are trying to make a distinction without a difference. Nice try.

An appointment that was politically expedient based on his party's power as demonstrated though democratic elections.

He got to be dictator the same way Morsi did...by taking power.

The notion that Morsi gets to give himself powers that cannot be challenged just because his party won an election (a disputed election, by the way) is asinine at best.

 

The point is that Hitler was not democratically elected as chancellor as I stated from the beginning. I am glad you can say that but it does make a big difference from what was said. Taking down HItler would not have been taking down a democratically elected leader.

 

This completely disregards the parliamentary system the Reichstag operated under.

I appreciate how you want to win this point and you do in a strictly literal sense.

But in a broader, more accurate and more nuanced sense the
electoral successes of the Nazi Party made it possible and incumbent upon Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor (as he indeed did
though he was initially loathe to do so).

 

yes I am right and the point is that Hitler's rise to power was not part of a democratic election, including laws that basically made some opposition illegal. It is a myth that the majority of Germany wanted him in office and that is what I am on about and guess what even you can see I am right.

 

I see you stopped reading after a certain point. You are right in one literal sense only!

In a broader more meaningful sense you are not. Hitler was appointed Chancellor due entirely to the electoral success of the National Socialist Party. He was not put into office per se but his party was given parliamentary power by the electorate and that power got him appointed
Chancellor.

A myth? It's hard to claim this when the party was the most popular in Germany in the early 30's when Hitler rose to power.
Additionally it's moot in the larger context of this thread.