Posted on 12/07/2011 4:47:58 PM PST by Amerisrael
In fact that was a campaign promise of G.W. Bush in 2000. But during all eight years of his presidency he never kept his promise.
He did the same as his predecessor Bill Clinton and exercised that immoral 'waiver' to not move our embassy from Tel-Aviv to Israel's capital city Jerusalem.
If Bush had kept his word and followed through with it early in his presidency, it would have greatly bolstered our closest ally. Both politically and symbolically.
But he didn't. He engaged in appeasement. Interpreted as weakness.
Not only that, Bush and Condi helped pave the way for Obama's anti-Israel policies.
Bush campaigned on a platform of being a staunch supporter of Israel. He wasn't. In fact, in true Obama fashion Bush pulled the rug out from under our ally and called for the creation of yet another Arab muslim country:
--in the veary heart of Israel's own land of Judea and Samaria. A Palestinian state.
An utter betrayal of our most important ally.
Not to mention his support for the wrenching of Kosovo away from Serbia for the establishment of another Islamist country.
Now here comes Gingrich. Talking the same 'Israel talk'.
Candidates often use the 'God talk' to entice the huge block of evangelical voters. And why not? It worked for Carter in 1976.
The GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are all engaging in the 'Israel talk' in order to woo support of Jewish and evangelical voters.
Which brings us here:
See also,--
Is Newt Gingrich a Bob Dole for 2012? -DBKP
"Abuse of the national security waiver by presidents"-[Clinton, Bush, Obama]
"Stripping away that stupid 'waver' from the Jerusalem Embassy Act"
The only thing about Gingrich is he had a pretty good track record in Congress of delivering on his promises.
According to Bolton, Condi was more of a problem than she was an influence for good policy. She tried to work around Bolton on more than one occasion.
This promise has been reneged on so many times that I think there may be information regarding it that is only revealed to you once you become president. It could even be that Israel has some reason not to want to move the embassies.
It’s just very odd that it has not been moved to Jerusalem in all this time.
“...think there may be information regarding it that is only revealed to you once you become president.”
Like what?
Don’t buy that even for a minute.
Appeasement to the Islamists, pure and simple.
The hypocritical thing in all this is how G.W Bush had the audacity to go make a speech in Jerusalem warning against the danger of engaging in the “false delusion of appeasement policies...”—
While at the same time his administration was pressuring Israel to do just that,—”engage in the false delusion of Roadmap appeasement policies”.
Jerusalem OTOH is dull, dry, and dominated by the orthodox, so pleasures of the flesh are, uh, rare.
Put another way, there's scant girl watching in J-lem, if you know what I mean.
It could just be the foreign service lifers exercise a veto.
Obama is already planning on moving the embassy to Ramallah.
Appeasement to get the Evangelical and Jewish vote? Been there, done that.
Just tell me Newt your position On Obamacare
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.