In response to:

The Obama Admin, NY Times, and the Islamist

mbowen300 Wrote: Mar 10, 2013 8:26 PM
if thats true (most likely not) we shold stop paying and when Egypt gets its but t kicked we can save money with a smile .or should we pay rapist not to rape ,murderers not to kill ,bank robbers not to rob ,or me not to drink 32 oz sodas ?
Bondman60 Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 8:28 AM
Although Israel could probably still defeat Egypt in a single-front war, it would be no repeat of 1967, or even 1973. The 1 to 2 billion dollars we have been giving Egypt since 1979 has not been spent on improving the Egyptian economy or society. All of it has been spent on modernizing and training the Egyptian military, now probably the next most formidable military in the region next to Israel's. That's all on the United States.
Michael160 Wrote: Mar 11, 2013 3:22 AM
That's been the case since the Camp David Accords in the 70s. There hasn't been a general war in the Middle East since Jordan and Egypt were put on the dole.

Not only is The New York Times editorial page known for often being thin on facts, it is known for its cheerleading of the Obama administration—especially the administration’s shortsightedness regarding the Middle East.

To prove that point, they recently published their March 4 editorial: Egypt Needs to Act. In the course of attempting to make their argument, the Times not only butchered the facts, they praised the terrible decision by the Obama administration to hand Egypt wads of US money. Go figure.

They hailed Obama’s decision to send $250 million of hard-earned, taxpayer money to the Muslim Brotherhood of...