What doesn't get reported on as often is the amount of Democrats that see Obama's actions in an unfavorable light.
“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”
“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee managed to obtain 329 signatures from members of congress, "key figures" from both parties, to encourage Obama to work "closely and privately" with Israel, instead of his policy now of publicly trying to pressure them.
But even a key defender of Obama’s Mideast policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), is seeking to narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama. And the unusual criticism by congressional Democrats of the popular president is a sign that it may take more than a transformative presidential election to change the domestic politics of Israel.
Other Democrats, in interviews with POLITICO, raised similar concerns. While few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state, they question putting public pressure on Israel while — so far — paying less public attention to Palestinian terrorism and other Arab states’ hostility to Israel.
“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”
So, while Obama plans to visit and speak in Cairo, Egypt, to bow and scrape a little more to hostile Arab countries, in a public speech, his own party members as well as the Republicans are publicly expressing concerns about his Middle East madness.
Well, there were many of us who saw this coming. Some of us didn’t buy the “trust him on Israel” spin which has now proved embarrassingly wrong for his fellow Democrats. The question remains whether the Obama policy is sustainable in the face of realities in the Middle East (Peace process — what peace process?) and a political revolt at home. This may, like the ill-fated Guantanamo closing stunt, prove to be another foolish gambit that dissolves when confronted by domestic opinion and international realities.
For now, however, the president has decided that rather than do something about Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Russia he will throw some elbows at Israel. Other than alienating members of his own party, creating a breach with our closest ally in the region and signaling to hostile powers that he is less serious about their misbehavior than preventing home-building in the West Bank it is hard to see what can be accomplished by this.
It is not only Americans, Congressional Republicans and Democrats that are noticing Obama's lack of understanding the Middle East but other countries are staring to weigh in on the situation.
Barack Obama is blind to his blunders over Islam
The new President's approach discourages change in Middle Eastern countries that need it most
Is Mr Obama similarly hoping to build a bloc of Arab states led by Egypt and supported by Turkey and Israel? Or, as some Arabs fear, is he reaching out to Iran to resume its position as “the local gendarme”? The policy of “engaging Iran” cannot exclude a regional leadership position for the Khomeinist regime.
In trying to prove that he is not George Bush, Barack Obama has committed big mistakes on key issues of foreign policy. His Cairo address, and his “one-size-fits-all” Islam policy, is just the latest. It encourages Islamists and ruling despots, discourages the forces of reform and change and, ultimately, could produce greater resentment of the United States among peoples thirsting for freedom, human rights and decent governance.
Mitt Romney also took aim, publicly at Obama, for his apology tour:
Republican Mitt Romney, seen as a likely contender for the White House in 2012, scolded President Barack Obama on Monday, arguing that he has failed to take a tougher line against U.S. critics in the global arena.
"I take issue with President Obama's recent tour of apology," Romney said. "It's not because America hasn't made mistakes — we have — but because America's mistakes are overwhelmed by what America has meant to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world."
Obama has expressed regret while traveling abroad for America's leadership failures and other past conduct.
"This is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics," Romney said.
The kicker, and quite ironic?
"The president also claimed on Arabic TV that America has dictated to other nations," Romney said. "No, America has sacrificed to free nations from dictators."
The hypocrisy of Obama is the "audacity" to claim we have dictated to other nations and apologize for it publicly, at the same time as he is trying to dictate to Israel to bow down and kiss hostile Arab countries asses in the process.