As Legolas notes, you are defending a military coup against a democratically elected leader, mainly on the grounds you dislike some of his policies. I share that dislike, just as I disliked many of Mubaraks, but the difference is Morsi represented, for good or ill, the majority of his countrymen. I dislike the House GOPs policies, too, but would not support a military coup against them any more than you would support one against Obama, because military government of a "free" society is a much worse policy than anything either political party has proposed. Sooner or later the American public must come to terms with what the State Dept. figured out in the '50s: The trouble with free election is they are FREE.

I get that Morsi was the Muslim Brotherhoods Islamist candidate, and do not deny the world would be a better place if Saddam and al-Zawahiri had met the same fate as Qutb. On the other hand, it would probably be a better place if each of them had not been routinely tortured while IN those prisons—along with anyone and everyone else deemed an enemy of the state, or even a potential one. There is good reason we pulled the rug from beneath Mubarak, just as there is good reason we vassilated over doing so until it was clear his regime had no more popular support nor sustainability than Qaddafis.

Western democracy really does not have a dog in the fight between theocratic and military dictators, and invariably comes to regret intervening despite that lack. Consequently, Egypts army overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood gives me no more reason to cheer than did the Muslim Brotherhood overthrowing Egypts army. Six of one, half a dozen of the other; nothing remotely like a free democracy is likely in either case.