Another example is his ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman. A big Obama and Democratic fundraiser (having directed more than $500K to the cause), Gutman, while at a a Brussels meeting on combating anti-Semitism, causally blamed the Jews for bringing it on themselves. What does the Obama administration have to say about that?
The White House on Saturday condemned anti-Semitism in all forms.
Not exactly a ringing condemnation of Gutman's ugly commentary, is it? But it get worse. Listen to State Department spokesman Mark Toner try to condemn anti-semitism without condemning the anti-semite. From a news conference yesterday:
Q: I’ll start with Ambassador Gutman’s speech from last week.
Does the — did the administration sign off on this, or was it vetted
by anyone in EUR or NEA? And does the administration agree with the
sentiments that he expressed in his speech?
MR. TONER: I think you saw — actually, let me start again. I’m
not aware that his remarks were cleared back here in Washington. He
made very clear in a subsequent statement that they were his thoughts
or his remarks. He did condemn — he — and was very vocal about
condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms, and I believe he expressed
regret that his words might have been taken out of context.
Q: Do you — do you think that they were taken out of context?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. In –
Q: Does the administration agree with the content of the — of
Ambassador Gutman’s speech?
MR. TONER: I think have to say — and you’ve seen, obviously,
the White House –
Q: Well, no, actually I had to get those — they were apparently
being only sent to select people. I wasn’t selected, maybe because I
was gone, but –
MR. TONER: You’re always selected.
Q: – I have — I have seen them, however. I’m — but they
don’t answer the question about whether the administration agrees with
what Ambassador Gutman said in his speech.
MR. TONER: And the administration and the State Department says
that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.
Q: That’s great, Mark. I’m glad that you do. And I’m sure
everyone is glad that you do. But do you agree with the content of
Ambassador Gutman’s speech?
MR. TONER: We –
Q: I don’t know — it’s a pretty easy question. Yes or no?
MR. TONER: It is a — it is — it is — it was his remarks. It
was his opinion –
Q: So he wasn’t speaking on — the ambassador to Belgium, he was
not speaking –
MR. TONER: He was not speaking on behalf — I think he’s said as
much. He said it was his remarks and he was speaking on his own –
Q: No, he didn’t. He did not say that. He — but he was not
speaking on behalf of the U.S. government?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so.
Q: So the — OK, the ambassador to Belgium shows up at a
conference in Europe, in Belgium, and he is not speaking on behalf of
the U.S. government. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: The ambassador was expressing his views on an issue.
Q: They’re not the view — so these –
MR. TONER: He subsequently — he subsequently issued a statement
clarifying that he was — and expressing regret if his remarks were
taken out of context. He then said that he does condemn anti-Semitism
in all its forms and in fact pointed to his own family history as a –
as a testament to that.
Q: So are you — well, I understand that. But you’re saying
that he was speaking as a private citizen, not as the U.S. ambassador?
MR. TONER: Well, of course, when — any time an ambassador
speaks, he is representing the United States.
Q: So the views that he expressed in his speech do not represent
the views of the administration?
MR. TONER: Matt, I made it very clear –
Q: Mark, I understand that you condemn anti-Semitism in all its
forms. I understand that, OK? I’m asking you if you agree with the
content of his speech, which he gave as the U.S. ambassador to
Belgium.
MR. TONER: And I would just say that he was — he was sharing
his views on an issue. Our commitment to Israel’s security is
ironclad. The United States — or Israel has no greater friend or
ally than the United States. And we condemn anti-Semitism in all its
forms.
Q: OK, that’s fine. But I don’t — I’m not hearing in there –
unless you’re going to tell me right out he was speaking as a private
citizen not as the ambassador. Is that — that’s what you’re
saying?
MR. TONER: What’s that — he — that — I’m sorry, could you
repeat your question again?
Q: That his comments were delivered as a — as a private
citizen, not as a representative of the U.S. government?
MR. TONER: Again — (chuckles) — we’ve been very clear that we
condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms regardless of, you know, how call it or how you characterize it.
Q: Do you — do you think that — do you — OK, so you do not
agree, then, with the — with the — with the contents of the
ambassador’s speech?
MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stop there.
Wow.
Does the Obama administration agree with Howard Gutman that Jews are to blame for anti-semitism? Why yes, yes they do. They will not rebuke Gutman, nor will they condemn his speech. Deep inside, they believe he is right, and privately, they all wish (Barack, Hillary, Leon Panetta, etc.) they could day the same thing out loud themselves.
But no tire tracks on Gutman's back - he, much like Jon Corzine, will be spared the bus.
Because an anti-semite's money - or a Wall Street crook's bundles of cash - is still good in this administration...
And doesn't it all have a Spinal-Tap~ish element to it?
David St. Hubbins: We say, "Love your brother." We don't say it really, but...
Nigel Tufnel: We don't literally say it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't say it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don't really, literally mean it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don't really, literally mean it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't believe it either, but...
Nigel Tufnel: But we're not racists.
Nigel Tufnel: But we're not racists.
David St. Hubbins: But that message should be clear, anyway.
Nigel Tufnel: We're anything but racists.
Nigel Tufnel: We're anything but racists.
No comments:
Post a Comment