Should the U.S. halt foreign aid to Libya and Egypt?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The violence in the Middle East has renewed questions about which countries get U.S. foreign aid and whether they deserve it.
Some House conservatives wanted to strip foreign aid to Libya and Egypt from a six-month funding bill set for a vote today. That's not going to happen because it was too late for any changes to this bill.
Nonetheless, some Republicans are questioning if the U.S. should keep giving money to countries run by "radical Islamists" such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Others say before handing out aid, the U.S. should make sure Libya is helping with the investigation into the attack and murder of our ambassador and three other Americans.
But not everyone agrees. According to The Hill newspaper, senior House Republican David Dreier of California says it would be a "big mistake" to cut funding to Libya and Egypt. Dreier says it's essential now more than ever to "strengthen ties with these fledgling democracies."
It's worth pointing out that as millions of Americans suffer under a weak economy, our government is sending lots of money we don't have overseas to other countries. U.S. foreign aid to Egypt is about $1.5 billion a year. That's second only to Israel.
And Mohamed Morsy, the new Egyptian president, didn't even apologize for the attacks on the embassy in Cairo until today, two days after they happened. That tells us quite a bit.
The U.S. had withheld aid to Egypt this past year when the government was cracking down on protesters. Now a decision will have to be made whether to do it again.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. halt foreign aid to Libya and Egypt?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Did Mitt Romney kill his own chances of becoming president with his reaction to the violence in Egypt and Libya?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Mitt Romney may have done himself in.
At the very least, the Republican candidate for president likely damaged his chances of being elected by the way he reacted to the violence in Egypt and Libya.
Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast suggests Romney's response makes him "unfit" for the responsibility of running the country.
Sullivan lays out the reasons why he thinks Romney should be disqualified from being president.
Including Romney's knee-jerk judgments, based on ideology not reality, his inability to back down when he said something wrong and his argument that President Obama sympathized with the murderers of America's ambassador to Libya.
Criticizing America's Commander-in-Chief while U.S. interests were still under attack, and Americans were dying, comes off as amateur and un-presidential, and might just be political suicide for Romney.
It's times like these when an unguarded comment can leave a lasting impression.
Compare Romney's response to how the 1980 Republican candidates for president reacted to the Iran hostage crisis under President Carter's watch.
As The Atlantic points out, when news broke that an effort to rescue the American hostages from the Tehran embassy failed Ronald Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."
George H.W. Bush went even further, saying he "unequivocally" supported carter and it wasn't a time to "try to go one-up politically."
Mitt Romney has been around long enough to know better.
Here’s my question to you: Did Mitt Romney kill his own chances of becoming president with his reaction to the violence in Egypt and Libya?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments