Archives for posts with tag: Palestinians

In a fundraising speech, Mitt said that the Palestinians don’t want peace.  Period.  But then he went on with details to explain how the situation with the borders presents a security concern for Israel.  see  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-palestine-video_n_1892862.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Certainly some radical elements don’t want peace and even the mainstream is not going to be for peace while they feel they are victims of occupation.   But to make it sound like they don’t want a settlement is to dismiss the Palestinians as another group of people who can’t be dealt with and who he can’t be bothered to worry about.  He admits that it’s a complex situation but fails to mention the radicals on the Israeli side who would push to destroy Palestian settlements regardless of where they sit and replace them with Jewish ones – and who would never allow the Palestinians a state, whether the capital was to be in E.  Jerusalem or not.   He knows that situation it is a tinderbox.  He should respect that dealing with the parties involved is like handling a loaded weapon with a light trigger pull.   But clearly he does not.

It appears that he did not mention relocating the US embassy in that speech, but it is time someone  gets him on record regarding the waiver of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  The rhetoric seems to indicate that he would be the first president to skip the waiver and allow the act to go into force.  This would be a catastrophe plain and simple.

So here it is:    Yes or no, if you were president, would you waive the Jerusalem Embassy Act, knowing what you know today (that is, barring some hidden obstacle in the security briefs)?

Advertisements
Why do people see  Romney as a flip-flopper?
Answer:  This is not just media bias.  It is because it’s not one person speaking.
Try this on:  Last week Romney said, on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” This set off a firestorm among conservative Republicans. Later that day, Romney’s campaign again reconfirmed he was against covering people with pre-existing conditions who have not had continuous health coverage.
Then an embarrassing video exposed contents of Mitt’s speech at a fundraiser.  His initial response was along the line of: that’s not how I meant it.  Then Grover Niquist says it can be made into a plus and Rush follows by calling it a golden opportunity.  Now Mitt says, I meant what I said, although I do intend to strengthen the safety net.  There – another statement that will have to be walked back (not to mention fallout from his statement on the two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, which Ryan has initially supported).
Conclusion:  Mitt is the press agent for someone who makes the big decisions. If there is an actual Romney position on anything we won’t know for sure because at any time he could ask us to believe that he meant it the other way.