Yet these critics who are so quick to run for the disloyalty card ignore the reality that the reaction to Obama's Middle East speech on Thursday was so swift, overwhelming and bipartisan because support for Israel in the United States has almost never been stronger and is trending towards Israel even more so:
Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of Americans are not buying into the "Arab Spring" fantasy, and worry that our President is walking us -- I repeat, us -- down a path we do not want to go.
Maybe, just maybe, we were thrilled to see someone speak truth to power, because our media and intelligentsia will not do it.
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Americans are smarter than Obama thinks. Just because so many voted for him in 2008, he thinks we are still mesmerized. Kool-aid drunk. Bamboozled. Not so much.
ReplyDeleteGo Bibi!! Stand for Israel. We the People of the US stand with you.
Who says you need fancy high-tech to live in a virtual reality world? The future is here:
ReplyDelete" ... Netanyahu's contemptuous, disgraceful, desperate public dressing down of the American president in the White House." --Andrew Sullivan
You've got that right, DINORightMarie. Only thing that makes me uneasy is that actually 15% of Americans (that's a lot of people) according to that graph, are part of the Sullivan/Greenwald "Disloyalty Smear Lobby."
Today's level of support equals the '91 level when Saddam Hussein's Scuds were incoming.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly did Obama propose that was so radical?
ReplyDeleteOnce against the key word here is "based." the borders would be "based" on 1967 with many alterations made to preserve Israel's coloni- i mean security interests.
Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. “The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand’s careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer’s perfectly reasonable statements. “U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy.” Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized.
@Andrew - are you GG's sock puppet? He's been known to do that. GG posted the Onion piece as an update to his post. At least be original.
ReplyDeleteIt may also be that the US public is not buying the total canard that Islam is a religion of peace.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people are getting tired of being accused of being racist or 'Islamophobic' every time some Muslim tries to kill a bunch of non-muslims.
Frankly, the Palestinians haven't done anything that should change our sympathies. Add to that, the ability, or lack of ability, by Palestinian negotiators over the years, and you are left with a picture that paints the Palestinians as the "world's worst negotiators" as they have passed on multiple occasions deals that are probably as far as they could ever hope to achieve.
ReplyDeleteClearly, negotiations are not an option, only winning.
Here's the offensive part--verbatim--of Obama's Thursday State Department speech, on which he doubled down during his Sunday AIPAC speech:
ReplyDelete“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
Note the emphatic concern over the Palestinian "people," and their right to a "sovereign" "contiguous" (read continuous, unbroken) "state." Note also the absence of concern for the Israeli people and their right to a "sovereign" "contiguous" state.
Here are several analyses of why Obama's words are so radical/unacceptable, including one from Gene Simmons!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-double-downs-at-aipac/2011/03/29/AFhx9C9G_blog.html#pagebreak
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267796/borderline-treachery-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/05/21/gene-simmons-slams-president-obamas-israel-policy-he-has-no-f-ing-idea-what-the-world-is-like/