Israel's Capitol – Romney says Jerusalem, Obama?

Editor’s Note – Obama and his administration have circumvented the Congress many times, yet many Presidents have done so. However, in these tumultuous times, after the “Arab Spring” leading to the Syrian Revolution, all on Israel’s borders, or a part of the consortium that plans to “shove Israel into the sea”, isn’t it time one Congressional Act was followed?

The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act is one such act that should be a key to any President’s foreign policy – Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. As Mitt Romney affirmed, the official policy of the United States is that Israel’s capitol is Jerusalem. However, Hillary Clinton and Obama just cannot stop undermining Israel, despite their rhetoric.

From the Blaze and Rick Richman:

Click on map to enlarge

They just can’t bring themselves to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, can they?

They can’t answer the question of where the capital is, or where Clinton will visit (although the answer to both questions is obvious), lest someone press them on whether Jerusalem is in Israel. Perhaps while she is there on July 16 or 17, Secretary Clinton will be asked if she still takes the position that even symbolically treating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would jeopardize the non-existent peace process.

(…)

Three presidents – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – have signed a presidential waiver against moving the embassy to Jerusalem as required by the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. The act also calls for Jerusalem to remain Israel’s undivided capital.

So while Clinton is visiting Paris, Tokyo, Ulaanbaatar, Hanoi, Vientiane, and Phnom Penh, will she be calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?

Again, SUA asks why, why one of our most steadfast allies gets treated like the proverbial “red-headed step-child” of our foreign policy. It is time to align with Israel completely, not just in sound bites that have no meaning – just words that allow them to say they support Israel, yet we know underneath those vacuous words, they do not believe their own words.

Romney however – if we are to believe his words, is fore-square behind our ally, where is Hillary Clinton and Obama!

White House Differs with Romney on Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

By Fred Lucas – CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – In what marks a decisive difference in the presidential campaign, one day after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Jerusalem the capital of Israel, the White House asserted that Romney’s position was different from that of the Obama administration.

“Our view is that that is a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital should be determined in final status negotiations between parties,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday.

“I would remind you that that is the position that has been held by previous administrations both Democratic and Republican. So, if Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he is also disagreeing with positions taken by previous presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan,” Earnest added.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney struggled during the afternoon press briefing to answer what the capital of Israel was, insisting reporters already knew the administration’s policy and that the policy was not changed. Hours later he issued a written answer, stating it will be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

On Sunday, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, spoke from Jerusalem addressing the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

“It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,” Romney said. “Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel.

“We’re part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization,” he added.

On Thursday, IRN-USA Radio News reporter Connie Lawn asked Carney, “What city does this administration consider to be the capital of Israel – Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?”

Carney said, “I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed, Connie.”

The reporter followed, “What is the position? What’s the capital?”

Carney responded, “You know our position.”

Lawn said, “I don’t.”

Later on Thursday evening, Carney issued a written statement to answer the question.

“The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” Carney said in a written statement. “We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The statement mirrors the troubles that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had at a March 29 press briefing.

According to the official State Department transcript, a reporter asked Nuland, “Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the Embassy, the location of the U.S. Embassy?”

Nuland said, “We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.”

The reporter said, “Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?”

Nuland responded, “Jerusalem is a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations.”

The reporter asked, “That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?”

Nuland responded, “I have just spoken to this issue –”

The reporter went on to ask, “You’ve spoken to the issue but didn’t answer the question, and I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying – and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.” The reporter again asked, “What is the capital of Israel?”

Nuland said, “Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.”

The reporter again asked, “What is the capital of Israel?”

Nuland answered, “Our Embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.”

The reporter responded, “So does that mean that you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?”

Nuland said, “The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.”

The Washington Free Beacon first reported in March that the State Department had quietly altered an official communication that originally referred to Israel and Jerusalem as separate entities.

Does the left and Obama owe Bush an apology after Awlaki strike?

Editor’s Note– The Bush ‘doctrine’ after 9/11, and in the subsequent ‘War-on-Terror’, was to keep the American homeland safe. In a world of war that is and was unlike any other in history, this was no easy task. Perhaps more than just Mr. Obama needs to apologize to former President Bush. Why does he ask now? Because after a collection of alleged Americans joining a Jihad against America were actively seeking our demise were dispatched by a drone strike as ordered from the White House, it is apparent that Obama is actually more aggressive.

Former Vice President, Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney speaks out in real and provable terms of how America has not endured another attack, and compares Bush’s methods to the Obama administration and how it has taken a much more lethal, and some would say, less legal posture in issuing kill orders on wanted terrorists.

Cheney: After Yemen strike, Obama owes apology to Bush

Washington Post
Former vice president Dick Cheney on Sunday called last week’s CIA drone strike against al-Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki a validation of the George W. Bush administration’s terrorist-fighting strategy, and said that President Obama should apologize for his past criticism of those policies.

Cheney endorsed the killing of Awlaki as “justified,” despite Awlaki’s U.S. citizenship, and suggested that the Obama White House was being hypocritical when it approved a deadly strike against the New Mexico-born Awlaki while condemning Bush’s use of so-called enhanced interrogation methods of al-Qaeda prisoners.

“They’ve agreed they need to be tough and aggressive in defending the nation and using some of the same techniques that the Bush administration did,” Cheney said on CNN’s Sunday talk show “State of the Nation with Candy Crowley.” “And they need, as I say, to go back and reconsider some of the criticisms they offered about our policies.”

The Obama administration defended its decision to kill Awlaki, the first U.S. citizen to be added to the CIA’s target list, saying the al-Qaeda propagandist was part of a terrorist organization actively planning attacks on the United States. A Justice Department memo providing legal justification for the strike concluded that Awlaki was not entitled to normal legal protections because he was a combatant in a war against Americans.

But that reasoning rankled Cheney, who noted that Obama had criticized Bush-era decisions that justified the harsh treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners.

“They, in effect, said that we had walked away from our ideals, or taken policy contrary to our ideals, when we had enhanced interrogation techniques,” said Cheney, who has acknowledged supporting the Bush-era use of secret prisons and waterboarding for al-Qaeda suspects. “Now they clearly have moved in the direction of taking robust action when they think it is justified.”

Asked by host Crowley if he would like an apology, he replied: “Well, I would.”

But Cheney said that the Awlaki hit “was a good strike.”

On the same broadcast, the former head of the House Intelligence Committee called on the White House to release the legal memos justifying the use of lethal force against Awlaki. Former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said Obama should allow a public debate about the legal basis for its fight against terrorism, avoiding what she said was excessive secrecy under Bush and Cheney.

Of Cheney’s request for an apology, she said: “I think Vice President Cheney has a rather thin skin for a guy who has been in the partisan wars as long as he has.”