Actually it was the U.N. that had condemned Israel, and Rush misread it saying the U.S. had. He corrected his comment a few minutes ago.
DO, your posts aroused my curiosity, so I did some research. This thing was engineered so Barry could support both sides.
What the Security Council actually did was adopt a "Presidential Statement." Unlike resolutions, presidential statements are nonbinding, but they can only be adopted by consensus of the entire Council. So, the US supported the Presidential Statement as issued. Now, it is true that the US negotiated with Turkey to soften the statement Turkey initially wanted, but it did support the action. Here's the key text:
“The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
There is other language calling on release of the ships and declaring the Gaza situation "unsustainable," you know, the usual drivel.
Now, the world and the news media interpret this language as condemning Israel. To me, that is the clear intention. But Barry and Gibbsie don't interpret it that way and since it's nonbinding to begin with who can issue any ruling that they're wrong? And, as you note, they have a second layer of deniability because the U.S. rep never condemned Israel, if that's what the language means, the President of the Security Council did. Of course, he could only have done that if we agreed he could, but that's just a minor detail.
The Liar in Chief strikes again.