Washington, D.C. is a town run largely by lawyers. Naturally, this leads to a ton of convoluted and unnecessary legislation. And this overabundance of legality often leads to twisted logic in our nation’s capital – and confusion for us.
Take the two hotly debated (and often misused) words: “coup” and “terrorism.”
You see, when the Egyptian military recently ousted President Mursi, most of the world called that a coup. But for reasons you’ll see in a moment, the Obama administration doesn’t see it that way.
Then there’s Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood, Texas on November 5, 2009 – which left 13 people dead and 30 injured. You’d probably file that one under an act of terror. But according to Obama, you’d be wrong.
“Coup d’état” is a French word that made its way into the English language. The Oxford Dictionary identifies it as a French expression, meaning a “stroke of state.”
Military historian Edward Luttwak says that “[a] coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”
So, when the Egyptian military grabbed power and imprisoned President Mohamed Mursi, headlines across the world (correctly) screamed “Coup in Egypt.”
Yet in the Obama administration, twisted words reign, and take on surreal meanings. And in this case, they’re simply insisting that the situation in Egypt isn’t actually a coup.
Well, the Foreign Assistance Act states that if the “duly elected head of government is deposed by military act or decree,” then the United States must stop providing aid.
But Obama desperately wants to continue pumping $1.55 billion in aid to Egypt. And as I explained back in June, Egypt is collapsing and ungovernable. Without the continued flow of aid, the collapse will accelerate, and Egypt’s government would likely vanish.
This is just another classic example of the Obama team’s complete disregard for the law. And if Obama says it’s not a coup, then it’s not. Period.
More Than Semantics
A similar twist of words is playing out in the Fort Hood case. Obama’s lawyers insist that Hasan isn’t a terrorist, and that his attack is “work place violence” rather than an act of terrorism.
Talk about splitting hairs.
According to the FBI, Hasan was an avid reader of Jihadi websites. He worshipped at Jihadi-influenced mosques. Hasan even self-identifies as a “soldier of Allah.” He openly supported suicide attacks against non-Muslims, and received religious and operational inspiration from Anwar Al-Awlaki.
You may remember Al-Awlaki – he was the American citizen and al-Qaeda promoter killed by a U.S. drone because he was deemed a terrorist.
Now the administration’s refusal to call the Fort Hood attack a terrorist attack is seriously impacting the lives of the survivors and victims.
For example, the Pentagon refuses to treat the injured and dead as casualties of war. Consequently, they’ve been denied the Purple Heart medal that’s bestowed on Americans injured in battle.
The U.S. House even passed legislation to force the Pentagon to award the Purple Heart, along with disability and medical benefits associated with the honor, to the Fort Hood victims. Sadly, the legislation was killed by Obama supporters in the U.S. Senate.
Now the soldiers and their families are suing the Pentagon to reverse this decision in court. In the meantime, twisted interpretations by our government keep dollars flowing to Egypt while preventing us from adequately caring for injured Americans.
Unfortunately, laws are no good if the government can interpret their wording at will.
Your eyes on the Hill, Floyd G. Brown
This commentary was originally published at CaptialHillDaily.com, and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo Credit: Site.gov / Standard Compliant
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.