News

Wasserman Schultz brags on Obama’s continuity with Bush policies in ME

Many times we’ve pointed out that the Democrats are running to the right of Romney, or trying to, on Israel. Here’s more evidence. In an email recommending a Haaretz editorial that endorses Obama as good for Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, excerpted the editorial and included paragraphs linking Obama’s policy with George W. Bush’s neoconservative policy. A policy, says Haaretz, of launching a disastrous war to assist Israel’s security. Such a statement evidently won’t hurt Obama among the Democratic chair’s intended audience…

Here’s Wasserman Schultz:

Yesterday, Haaretz, the oldest Israeli daily newspaper, endorsed President Obama. It’s a must-read. Take a look at these excerpts, then forward it to everyone you know:

Obama is good for Israel
Haaretz editorial

“Tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls on Tuesday to vote for a president and vice president. It will be an important day for American democracy. This will be the Americans’ day, but the outcome of the elections will impact the entire world.

For Americans in general, and American Jews in particular, the United States’ attitude toward Israel is just one of many factors to consider – among internal and foreign affairs, the economy and defense – when casting their vote …

A deeper examination of the core issues comprising the two countries’ relations — devoid of political and personal interests — reveals no grounds for portraying Obama in a negative light.

Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, assisted Israel’s defense by toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and deterring, albeit for a limited period, Iran’s accelerated progress toward attaining nuclear weapons. Bush contributed to Israel’s peace, even if partially, by being the first president to adopt the two-state solution. His support even enabled the evacuation of settlements from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.

Obama continued this two-way track vis-a-vis Iran and the issue of Palestinian statehood. Under his pressure, Israel suspended for the first time — for a while — construction in the settlements. Relations between the two countries’ armed forces have never been so close. Obama’s challenge in his second term, if he wins the elections, is to lead the region to a stable arrangement of peace and security.

The outcome of the elections will be determined by the voters’ decision as to which of the two candidates is good for America. But if any of them are vacillating in their vote over whether Obama has been a good president for Israel, the answer is yes.”

P.S. I hope you noticed Haaretz’s version of the disastrous Iraq War: “George W. Bush… assisted Israel’s defense by toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq…” I’ve said that, Walt and Mearsheimer said that, Condi Rice said that. Try and say that in the public square here.

13 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And then there’s the Onion’s assessment of the two candidates and their respective views of Israel.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onions-issuebyissue-candidate-guide,30184/?ref=auto

Count Wasserman-Schultz as yet another member of the ‘we think it was worth it’ team to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for the security of Israel.

” Try and say that in the public square here.”

Yes, exactly. I’ve met steely glares or blank stares on the faces of some people to whom I’ve emphasized the importance of Israel’s “security” requirements as a central part of Bush’s Iraq war calculations. I’m presumably understood to be either anti semitic or a conspiracy theorist. I chalk this up to the scant coverage of the role Israel played in our rationale for that disgraceful war.

RE: “Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, excerpted the editorial and included paragraphs linking Obama’s policy with George W. Bush’s neoconservative policy. A policy, says Haaretz, of launching a disastrous war to assist Israel’s security.” ~ Weiss

NEW YORK TIMES / IHT (2006): “He [Bush] told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present . . .

SEE – “Bush and Israel: Unlike his father”, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, International Herald Tribune, 2006

[EXCERPT] WASHINGTON — When they first met as U.S. president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon that he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.
The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Sharon had helped develop.
But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 – six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond – the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.
“He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present, granted anonymity to speak about a private conversation.
“It was like, ‘Whoa, where did that come from?'”
That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As this president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah, even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation, some advisers to the father are expressing increasingly deep unease with the Israel policies of the son.
“The current approach simply is not leading toward a solution to the crisis, or even a winding down of the crisis,” said Richard Haass, who advised the first President Bush on the Middle East and worked as a senior State Department official in the current president’s first term. “There are times at which a hands-off policy can be justified. It’s not obvious to me that this is one of them.”
Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role now through the prism of the war on terror. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro- Israeli component of his conservative Republican base. . .

ENTIRE ARTICLE – https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2012/11/wasserman-schultz-brags-on-obamas-continuity-with-bush-policies-in-me.html

P.S. “FREE DON” SIEGELMAN PETITION – http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-please-restore-justice-and-pardon-my-dad

Me not being American and all, a few weeks ago I would have had no idea who this lady was. But that is not the case now because I happened to read Glenn Greenwald’s “The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz” and watched the video it referred to. *face palm*

So now I know who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is and what I read above isn’t too surprising – all things considered!