4/8/15

President Obama criticized Governor Walker during an NPR interview yesterday.

That was in response to the Governor stating that he will cancel the Iran nuclear “agreement” on his first day in office if he becomes the President.

President Obama responded by saying:

And, you know, I am confident that any President who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling to question the capacity of the Executive Branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries… It would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.

The media was abuzz with this story and, depending on each outlet’s bias, some chose to highlight the “smack down” that Obama delivered to Walker and others the fact that Obama gave Walker a huge boost in the Republican race.

Not one, I repeat not ONE outlet, pundit, or Bush era officials interviewed about this exchange raised the real issue—the ONLY real issue—the fact that President Obama did EXACTLY what he is saying his successor should not do. It is SHOCKING to me that only I am left to remind everyone of this simple fact.

Obama completely disavowed and disregard a written commitment of President Bush within months of coming to power and did not even make a big fuss about it.

To remind people:

On April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush wrote a letter to Prime Minster Sharon of Israel. The letter was signed, official, and made public that day. There can be no discussion that this was an agreement between the two countries; especially as the letter was part of a formal written exchange between the two, based on which Israel took a very significant action.

The letter in its entirety can be seen on the White House website.

The letter was very material and fundamental. The most important part of the letter is (emphasis and commentary mine):

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949*, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

*The term “1949 armistice lines” is a more legalistic/formal description of what is commonly known as “1967 borders.” They are one and the same. -RBZ

On June 5, 2009—less than six months after Obama took office—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed publicly in a low key event that there is no record of the Bush administration having agreed to Israel keeping the ‘settlement blocs’ (for settlement blocs read “Existing major Israeli populations centers” in the Bush letter).

Clinton rejected the letter, saying any such US stance was informal and “did not become part of the official position of the United States government.”

She did not even say that the Obama administration was canceling the Bush administration written agreement with Israel; she simply waived it off as “not official.”

To add insult to injury, Obama himself declared in his famous (some will say infamous) speech on May 19, 2011—ONE day before a meeting with Israel’s Prime Minster—that (paraphrased) the Israeli-Palestinian peace must be based on Israel going back to the 1967 borders.

So, it is OK for Obama to ignore and reject what his predecessor agreed to but not for Walker or any other new President to do the same to him?

I have to repeat here what Obama just said—it is shockingly arrogant and, as I said before, when you are more arrogant than you are clever, you are stupid.

Just read it again in the context of what Obama did regarding the Bush letter to see how preposterous this statement really is:

And, you know, I am confident that any president who gets elected will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling to question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries… It would be a foolish approach to take, and, you know, perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.

What does it say about Obama?

Why is NO ONE in the lazy, negligent media raising this point?