Cantor's Office Issues Second Comment: Won't Serve As Check On Obama 'In Relation To U.S./Israel Relations'

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office on Monday issued a follow-up comment to one made last week, saying that the congressman would serve as a roadblock to the Obama administration approach but not when it comes to issues of Middle East diplomacy.

A spokesman for the likely soon-to-be House Majority Leader said that there was no clarification being offered on a statement that caused a bit of controversy last week. On Monday, simply put, the office was reaffirming that while Cantor told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday that he planned on serving as "a check on the administration," he would not be playing that function "in relation to U.S./Israel relations."

Last week, after a meeting with Netanyahu, Cantor's office put out a statement that caused a bit of a stir within political circles.

Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington. He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.

There was no direct reference in that remark to U.S.-Israel relations. But such an implication was read by members of the press and some foreign policy analysts. What followed was several days of critical coverage over the idea that a sitting member of Congress would publicly and actively play the role of foiling the White House's foreign policy agenda. As The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel reported last week:

In the past, Republicans have been sharply critical of Democratic trips abroad that could be seen as undermining the official foreign policies of the U.S. president. For example, in 2007, both the Bush White House and its Republican supporters lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) for visiting Syria, saying that she was trying to circumvent President Bush (never mind that Republican lawmakers were also in Syria and Pelosi didn't criticize the Bush administration).

"It has long been the established principle of this country that the president of the United States leads our foreign policy," said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "And if you don't like the president, then you change him. But you don't have the two parties each conducting foreign policy in the way they think it ought to be conducted."

Cantor's office protested the notion that his initial statement contained any foreign policy implications. And while spokesman Brad Dayspring felt compelled to offer a follow-up comment to the Washington Post, he stressed that it was neither a clarification nor a walk-back.

This post has been updated from it's original version

Comments

[lonngfello]

02:46 PM on 12/11/2010

If Eric Cantor has more interest in serving Israel than America, he should renounce his US citizenship and relocate to Israel.

[Eli Dirkx]

10:07 AM on 11/23/2010

Now, now, everyone can back up their initial statements about stuff like this by saying it was taken out of context or giving an additional bogus explanation as to why they said it.

Problem with Eric, after having rather unsubtly stated his loyalty to Netanyahu, and claiming to side against his own president with this foreign leader, it's difficult to simply explain that away.
I suspect he's now desperate to stand his ground, not that I have any sympathy with it.
If Nancy Pelosi can be damned for her trip to Syria, then I don't see what's the problem with giving this one trouble.

[Rianna]

09:01 AM on 11/22/2010

What Cantor did was despicable, and disloyal. Someone of his stature, does not show undying loyalty and preference to another country over his President and country. The Dixie Chicks were condemned because they said they were ashamed of Bush, but Cantor gets away with this. The Dixie Chicks are in the entertainment arena, unlike Cantor, who is in Congress. You have got to think that perhaps most pro Israeli Congress people, and other leaders, might not openly say it loud, but feel the same way. At least the way they vote, indicates that they put Israel above the best interests of the US.

[martin2]

07:05 PM on 11/18/2010

For a United States Congressman to tell the leader of a foreign nation that he will support that nation,
against the wishes of our President and our country is Treason.

[silent echo]

02:13 PM on 11/18/2010

It's too late, we see where your loyalties are..

[KevinPA]

03:56 PM on 11/17/2010

Lets say Harry Ried went to Egypt or Pakistan (our allies officially but on the other side of the Israeli equation) And then Harry said something like the USA is not doing enough to halt settelments and president Obama should do more..... No dobut Eric Cantor will be the first one out there attacking a senator for devating from official US policy and high screams of treason......
Eric, our counrty is broken, please focus on us here at home. Israel is not your country, the USA is.

[silent echo]

02:14 PM on 11/18/2010

or move...

[martin2]

07:07 PM on 11/18/2010

Cantor was also a big booster for the Iraqi war.
A real chicken hawk.

[KevinPA]

08:18 AM on 11/19/2010

I don't know who is worse for our country. Guys like Cantor or the guys at GoldmanSachs

[FACTISFACT]

01:01 PM on 11/17/2010

No individual has the right to comment on US Politics in contravention of the US constitutional provision and the comment on decisions and functions that contradicts the government decision and function of own country's government in power to support a controversial foreign country either friendly or inimical to US especially a Congressional representative.

Such act by any US citizen and Congressional representative would deem to be considered a violation of the constitution, which the Congressman has flagrantly violated. Thus, it urgently calls for an in-depth inquiry into the matter as to what warranted him to violate the provision of constitution and support a foreign country being a citizen and congressional representative of US.

It has to be to established and decided in the case of this congressional representative by the government in power, if at all he would prefer to remain and act as US citizen and conduct the duties and function of a US congressional representative loyally. If not would he like to migrate to the Foreign country for which he is repeatedly violating the constitutional provision of US.

Appropriate action may be taken on the findings and recommendation of the inquiry report.

[Kirby]

10:04 AM on 12/12/2010

Like when, like when will this action ever take place. There's a big bad wolf lurking around in our government, and it seems as though somehow so many are afraid of it, and afraid not to take their pac monies and other zionist perks for U. S. politicians..

[jsgaetano]

11:43 AM on 11/17/2010

Why would Gooptards need to serve as a "check" on "one-party rule"?
 
Conservatives spent six years under George Dubai Bush telling America that the role of a minority party is to support the President, who is the living embodiment of the Will of the People... and how it was treasonous to oppose the Commander In Chief during A Time Of War (tm). 
 
Last time I checked, America is still at war.  That makes Goopers traitors and hypocrites, by their very own words.

[STParker]

09:43 AM on 11/17/2010

Yeah, sure, he wasn't referring to Israeli/US relations he was assuring the Primeminister of Israel that the Republicans would act as a check on Obama when it comes to health care in Scranton.

[BigBadMikey47]

12:25 AM on 11/17/2010

When we elect representatives to Congress, they are duty-bound by the Constitution to put the interests of the American people first, before the interests of any foreign country, regardless of what sort of relationship is shared between those countries. Any US official who willingly places the interests of a foreign government above those of the American people is guilty of treason.

[Anbreen]

10:07 AM on 11/18/2010

Boot him out. He's unfit to serve.

[martin2]

06:42 PM on 11/18/2010

well said

[Freenation]

09:05 PM on 11/16/2010

good that tough guy came to his senses...

[Robson]

08:58 PM on 11/16/2010

There were no major media outlets in the USA, other than Huffington and some other left wing outlets that covered either story. The Israeli media did. But that is a pattern we've all seen before.

Why did the US press cover-up this story, when they saturated us with Pelosi in Syria? If Americans aren't concerned about this pattern of the media protecting Israel from embarrassment, they damn well should be. The only thing that even remotely keeps our officials and government honest is the threat of having unethical and un-American actions reported to the public. When the media collaborates to give any official special immunity from public coverage regardless of reason (there is a recurrent pattern that such immunity has been based upon Israeli involvement and issues of ethnicity and nationality), we are in a big heap of trouble.

It is important that we hold the media outlets to task and demand an explanation from major wire services and from our local press as to why they failed to cover this story. It needs to start from both top and bottom. Can you even imagine a media cover up taking place had it been Keith Ellison meeting with the Palestinian head? I suggest that the media trashed Pelosi because the decision makers didn't want her talking to the Syrians. Decision makers controlling the news message equals manipulation.

[BigBadMikey47]

12:27 AM on 11/17/2010

Fanned and faved. There's more than meets the eye here, and it needs to be exposed for the danger that it represents.

[mjtaylor22]

01:21 PM on 11/17/2010

well you know that is that good old fake liberal media bias........ the right wing is always talking about.....basically if you are not glen beck conspirarcy theory crazy...
you r a liberal bleeding heart....socialist....
get it...be right wing extreme crazy or risk beign labled as a socialist...........lefty..nuff said.....

[DragonFly]

10:01 AM on 11/16/2010

" ... no clarification being offered on a statement that caused a bit of controversy last week."

" A 'BIT' of controversy?"

Yet again we see the corporate media jump right in with their 409 in an effort to cleanup another pungent brown spot left on the corporate agenda by some lackey unable to control his bulging ego.

[Bados]

08:53 AM on 11/16/2010

Any man who attends a Britney Spears concert and says it was business shouldn't be a congressman. Damn dude at least take your daughter with you.

[BGosh]

08:32 AM on 11/16/2010

"There was no direct reference in that remark to U.S.-Israel relations. But such an implication was read by members of the press and some foreign policy analysts."

You think? In the black and white world of Western media's Middle East coverage, and the highly vitriolic message board commenting communitiy posting incessantly, it's easy to see some inference attributed to comments made by a high ranking Jewish politician only to later be shown as an exaggeration of the original statement. Does this have anything to do with the Jew historically playing a role as society's boogeyman?

Check it before you wreck it.

[BGosh]

08:44 AM on 11/16/2010

Posted before reading the comments which follow. Is reading a Zionist tool? Is that why everyone is still yelling about how Cantor should move to Israel if he doesn't want to govern here? Wow, HuffPo.

[Nikkiru]

02:09 AM on 11/17/2010

Is reading a zionist tool? No. And for that matter, neither are straw man arguments like this one.

Honestly. If Cantor can denounce Pelosi as a felon just for having a meeting, isn't it special pleading to insist that his promise to undermine US foreign policy be held somehow above criticism?