Even the DNC can’t keep its story straight on why it initially omitted language affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from its 2012 platform, and then hastily shoved it back in over the objections of delegates.
On Tuesday, CNN’s Dana Bash said the DNC told her it was “simply following what the Obama administration’s policy is, and the White House said several months ago that the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
But this morning on CNN, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz contradicted that initial statement, claiming the removal of the pro-Israel language was a “technical omission” that wasn’t discussed before the convention.
“Essentially, with Jerusalem, it was a technical omission and nothing more than that,” Wasserman Schultz said Thursday on CNN. “There was never any discussion or debate commentary over adding or subtracting it.”
Why didn’t the DNC just say it was a technical error in the first place, instead of calling it a reflection of Obama’s policies? If that wasn’t confusing enough, Politico reports that President Obama saw the Israel plank before the convention, but didn’t press for changes until after Republicans seized on the issue:
Two platform planks sparked division at the Democratic National Convention here Wednesday.
Things got so bad that President Barack Obama was forced to personally intervene, ordering language mentioning God and naming Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel be added.
Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, a campaign source said, but did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday. And even then, it had to be forced through a convention hall full of delegates who nearly shouted down the change.
And yet Wasserman Schultz went on Starting Point this morning and claimed Obama was completely unaware of the omission before the convention, and “when he realized there was this omission said, this platform should reflect my personal view” on “an important issue like Jerusalem.” David Frum immediately skewered this argument:
So we’re supposed to believe Obama feels so passionately about Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and yet, 1.) The only time he’s ever mentioned it was in a 2008 campaign speech to AIPAC, which he immediately walked back, 2.) His White House not only scrubbed its own website of any reference that Jerusalem is in Israel, it also scrubbed the Bush administration’s references to it, 3.) While Obama administration officials have refused to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital when pressed by reporters, none of them have ever mentioned the president’s supposedly strong personal view.
Beyond that, we’re also supposed to believe that neither Obama nor his staff — who would presumably be aware of a position the president is allegedly so passionate about — ever saw the DNC platform before it was released. Do they really think the public is that clueless?
Why are you, Alana, and everyone else, missing the bigger story? The Jerusalem language was small potatoes, because it can be explained as a policy or tactics or negotiating issue. The language about Israel being America's "strongest ally" in the Middle East is more important. It goes to the overall relationship, which apparently has now been officially downgraded. That was taken out of the 2012 platform (it was in 2008), but it has not been put back in (along with a lot of other important stuff). By focusing on the one bone they threw to the so-called Pro Israel Democrats, while ignoring the far bigger issue of the "strongest ally" language–you are buying into the DWS/Obama/DNC spin.
Agreed. What about everything else that came out, AND DID NOT GO BACK IN? n nAbout the inept liar DWS: Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .
I hate to be cynical, but if the whole country is reduced to radioactive smoking glass, as I fear it well could be, does it really matter what the capitol of it was? n nThe two real questions that need to be asked are (1) will the USAF shoot down IDF bombers overflying Iraqi airspace on a bombing mission to Iran? (And what would the implications of *that* be?) n(2) And more importantly, depending on the IDF's mid-air refueling abilities which I don't believe to be sufficient to get all their planes to Iran and back, what will be the US response if Israeli planes on the return from bombing runs invoke the "harbor of safe refuge" rule and request permission to land at US bases in Iraq or Saudi or elsewhere? n nInternational law dating back to the days of sailing ships is any vessel from any country that you are not currently at war with must be assisted if it is in distress and must be let into your harbor if it is seeing refuge from a storm. You don't have to risk your people in helping them (although the USCG routinely does) but you have to let them save themselves and you have to give them anything you can safely give them. (At the very least, you are required to give dry clothing & food to the survivors and respectfully bury the dead that come floating in from a shipwreck.) n nThis has been extended to aircraft and if an airplane is falling out of the sky, it can land *anywhere* (including in the Hudson River) and this is the point the ChiComs didn't understand back in 2000 — once the pilot sent out a distress call — once he said "MayDay" on an international frequency, he had every right to land at the super-secret ChiCom military base. n nSo what happens if the IDF planes come back from striking Iran with dry tanks and transmit — in English on frequencies which we monitor — "MayDay, MayDay, MayDay, we are BINGO fuel and request permission to land." Do we let them land (as we are required to)? Do we give/sell them fuel and let them continue onward back to Israel?
but Iraq will set the policies not the United States, we are out of active combat actions and our relationship is now regulated by treaty. Could be they will request a compliant US to intercept and destroy but it seems improbable that Israel would attempt a mission in which airspace corridors were not secured circumventing Arab neighbors not prepared to grant passage on the sly. Obama has stated through his principals that America will not help Israel and not back her–the only question is how quick, massive, and negative the retaliation is–so Israel needs to plan for a decisive and quick operation–the whole thing from this distance sounds like a pipe dream (even without factoring in the need to suppress the Hezzis in Southern Lebanon). n nUnless Israel plans to go into the reflective radioactive glass parking lot business itself. n nWhich may be why lo these many months/years after the speculations began the inner security cabinet, which must, by Israeli law, approve this operation, never quite gets around to a vote,
I wasn't aware of the inner cabinet vote rule, but if they had/do vote, would they actually publicize the fact that they have? n nAnd one other thing — the Iranians don't care but I suspect the Israelis do — if you put them on "bunker-busting" bombs and have the detonation below ground it is one thing, but if you start touching off nukes in the atmosphere in that congested part of the world, you are going to be creating problems for your own people as well. Hiroshima & Nagasiki were *tiny* compared to what we are talking about here, and there was a lot of ocean for the fallout and such to drift into. This is not a good situation…. n
I get the impression that no one is really in charge of the Obama campaign, certainly not the President . Of course this should come as no surprise, there has been no national leadership shown by this President for four years so why should I expect him to lead his reelection effort?.