Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times as two separate articles, a Part One and a Part Two. Both parts are below, rejoined as a single column.
SAN DIEGO, September 9, 2012 — Under verbal attack from Mitt Romney and other Republicans regarding some glaring changes in their 2012 platform, the DNC attempted to quickly clean things up. Unfortunately, they ended up creating a much bigger mess, exposing a definite lie from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and raising suspicion about the possibility of greater cover ups from the Obama administration itself.
At the heart of this controversy is a comparison between DNC 2008 and 2012 platforms. Among the differences is the omission of the word “God,” along with affirmation that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Additional deletions are not getting as much press even though they are every bit as controversial; a statement about the terrorist organization Hamas, and some further comments about America’s relationship to Israel.
Regarding God, the 2008 DNC platform said:
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential” (emphasis added).
The 2012 revision reads: “We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
The 2008 platform said the following about Israel and her enemies:
“The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements. … The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
The 2012 revision reads, “President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation – including funding the Iron Dome system – to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security.”
In a hasty attempt to paste back the “Jerusalem” and “God” references, Democratic National Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa called a special meeting of the Democratic delegates in Charlotte, North Carolina. The entire exchange was witnessed by anyone watching on live television. After a motion by former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, Villaraigosa entered into the following exchange with his delegate audience:
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor, say “aye.”
DELEGATES: Aye!
The “ayes” were loud and many. So the mayor continued.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say “no.”
DELEGATES: No!
This is where things got interesting. The shouts of “no” seemed every bit as loud as the “ayes.” Villaraigosa continued.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the—let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor, say “aye.”
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say “no.”
DELEGATES: No!
Again the “no” shouts sounded just as loud.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I—I guess—
UNIDENTIFIED: You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re going to do.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I’ll do that one more time. All those delegates in favor, say “aye. ”
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say “no.”
DELEGATES: No!
By now it wasn’t clear whether the “no” votes were even with the “ayes” or greater. Polling the delegation would have been appropriate at this point. Instead, we witnessed something most amazing:
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.
(Transcript made available by Democracy Now, September 12, 2012. Comments in between are my own.)
The look of surprise on poor Villaraigosa’s face when he heard the three repeated votes was a sight to behold, but not as interesting as a picture of the teleprompter (courtesy of Fox News host, Greta Van Susteren) stating ahead of time that a two-thirds majority had been heard. Evidently this “two-thirds majority” was a foregone conclusion before the meeting even convened! There were loud boos from the audience after the mayor’s decision.
This scene could not have been invented for a movie. It would have looked too far fetched, even for a story. As the old saying goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, things got even stranger.
This was only the beginning.
Enter from stage left DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Debbie can always be counted on to add spicy twists and turns. In an interview with CNN about why the deletions were made in the first place, she said, “Well, really, it was essentially a technical oversight … And President Obama, because he personally believes that Jerusalem is and always should remain the capital of Israel, he made sure that we amended the platform to reflect his personal view as well as reflect the language that we had in the platform in 2008.” Asked if the vote on the floor truly portrayed the wishes of the delegates, she replied, “it was absolutely a two thirds vote”(CNN, Convention Floor Interview, September, 54, 2012).
To believe her comments we must suspend belief and swallow a scenario where dynamite loaded subjects such as Jerusalem, Hamas and even God Himself were omitted by accident without anybody noticing. We must pretend that we didn’t really see and hear the amendment session for ourselves on TV. Finally, we have to believe that Obama contributed nothing to his party’s platform this year, or at the very least, nobody informed him about the platform. Well, never mind. If the DNC chairwoman has spoken officially, that ends the matter. After all, who has more credibility than Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
This comment, reported by Michael Barone and Philip Klein in the Washington Examiner, was quite a powerful statement from the enthusiastic DNC chairwoman. Only one problem: Ambassador Oren denied making any such comment:
“I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel, Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”
Debbie wiggled away from her dilemma with a denial of her own, insisting that the Washington Examiner misquoted her. “That comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.”
However, the alleged “misquote” was recorded by Klein and released to the public. Her exact recorded words were, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”
That sounds remarkably like Klein’s original report. Caught with jam on her face, Wasserman Schultz still denies putting her hand in the jar. Add this to her “two-thirds” misstatement and we have reason to doubt everything else, including her promise about Obama’s desires for Israel.
In that vein, Politico offers a much different interpretation of Obama’s involvement with his party platform, namely that he had been aware of the deletions all along:
“While the campaign at first said Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, it later said he did not learn of the issue until Wednesday morning, when he became aware of seeing news coverage of the issue. Once that happened, the president directed his staff to change the language to include a reference to God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because, the campaign source said, the amended version is “consistent with the president’s own positions”(Politico, Sept 5, 2012)
Some might question Politico’s accuracy because of its exclusive source, but other reports from other outlets force us to at least consider the possibility that Politico is dead on accurate.
At first, The Weekly Standard got an explanation similar to the one from Wasserman Schultz from an Obama campaign advisor: “The president did want to make clear what his personal beliefs were because they were not in the original platform.” But when The Weekly Standard asked this same official to comment on White House spokesman Jay Carney’s refusal to commit to the Jerusalem issue back in July, the spokesman said, “The president has a personal view, but the president and the administration’s view as a matter of policy is ultimately that Jerusalem is a final status issue … It doesn’t make sense for a U.S. a president to impose his personal beliefs in a policy context. … But it’s important for him to make clear where he stands on these issues.”
The translation of this political gibberish is this: Obama does not want Jerusalem to be the capital, but Obama’s policy does want Jerusalem to be the capital. But Chairwoman Shultz already told us that the president personally believes that Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital. For that matter, the White House campaign official initially said the same thing and adjusted personal to policy only after being pressed.
Obama’s feelings about Jerusalem have surfaced on and off, not only through his campaign advisors and Press Secretary, but the State Department itself. In March, when asked to comment on whether Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, State Department official Victoria Nuland said “Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations” (The Washington Free Beacon, March 28, 2012).
That may sound a little evasive, but in all fairness she did add more: “That’s all I have to say on this issue.”
In September of 2011, she finally had more to say. Nuland referred to the building of Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem as “counterproductive.” She was also “deeply disappointed by Israel’s decision on new settlement construction.”
“We consider this counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties, “ Nuland explained, “ and we have long urged both parties to avoid actions which could undermine trust, including in Jerusalem, and will continue to work with parties to try to resume direct negotiations” (Y Net News.com, Sept 27, 2011).
If Jerusalem is really recognized by Obama (or Obama’s policy for those who like to parse words) as Israel’s capital, why be concerned when Israel builds apartments in her own capital?
And what about the whole Hamas omission, which also relates to Israel? Obama didn’t even try to put that back in. Why not? Perhaps the Hamas deletion shouldn’t be too big of a surprise considering the amount of financial aid America continues to award those cut throats via Palestinians who elected Hamas as one of their ruling parties (along with Fatah). In fact, Palestinian Media Watch recently reported the intentions of a stronger connection between the two parties:
“A Palestinian Authority minister stated last month that Fatah and Hamas must unite in order to achieve the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Although the Bush administration also gave financial aid to the Palestinians, it is reasonable to ask why Obama has no concern about a new Democratic platform that removes mention of Israel’s sworn enemy, an enemy who promises her complete annihilation.
Meanwhile, let us not allow the whole song and dance about changed amendments to get our minds off the original platform topics in their own rites, since they say every bit as much about truth and falsehood. It is not yet clear why God was deleted but it is painfully apparent that Jerusalem got the white out because many Democratic delegates (and very likely, Obama himself) simply do not accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Such a position is not supported by facts or by honest friendship with Israel.
Jerusalem has been the capital city of Israel since the time of King David, one thousand years before Christ. Jerusalem’s conquerors have come and gone, but occupations by Babylonians, Romans, Muslims, Byzantines and Roman Catholics (to name only some) do not establish any moral disqualification of Jewish ownership. Neither is the city disputable simply because Arabs in the Holy Land changed their name to “Palestinians” in the 1960’s and then allowed some in their number to rewrite history by insisting Palestinians are the true indigenous people and that Jews have no ancient claim to the land.
Actually, Arabs came on the Jerusalem scene in 637 AD as a result of Muslim expansion. Jews and Arabs continued living there all the way up to the twentieth century when the United Nations offered a two-state solution (one Jewish, one Arab) that would share Jerusalem as the capital city. The Jews agreed to this partition. The Arabs did not. After several wars with surrounding Arab nations dedicated to liquidating Israel, the Israelis eventually took over all of Jerusalem in 1967. Inasmuch as the PLO charter does not even recognize Israel’s right to exist, Israel has zero reason to discuss any new partitioning of her capital.
It can be argued that to not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is to not recognize Israel, period. Israel views her legitimacy through the lens of her own history. If there are lessons to be learned from the 2012 platform debacle, one of them is that Obama should talk straight and speak his honest feelings about Israel so that our electorate, including a strong Jewish Democratic voting block, can make an informed decision in November. Don’t hold your breath. Still, it’s not too hard to add up the pieces and make an educated guess.
Which was worse? Removing Jerusalem and other important features from the platform in the first place? Lying about who initially wanted them removed? Trying to put some of them back in a railroaded undemocratic fashion? Compounding the lie with claims that the two-thirds majority was legitimate? Unfortunately for Obama, Shultz and their associates, the correct answer seems to be E: All of the above.
