Speech Therapy

To me, President Obama's speech on the Middle East was remarkable for how unremarkable it was. Nice ideas, nothing much new. Particularly his words on Israel/Palestine. But you'd not see it the same way, were you to listen to the edited version carried breathlessly, even by some of the falsely-labelled "liberal" media; and if you check out the usual RWS™ blogs (I don't recommend it if you want to retain any of your [like mine] waning view of humanity as respectable) you'd think he spoke wearing headgear and smoking a hookah. I'd be willing to bet nearly all the commenters at this place (really, I mean it: don't go there. Not a fact within a million pixels) took the word of the writer and never saw the speech. The writer who, among other things, said Obama killed the economy. And if they did see it, well, subtlety ain't exactly in their ouevre.

If un-earthshaking, what the president said was direct, even-handed, and clearly not favoring one party over the other.

I have little hope for pre-apocolyptic peace over there. I doubt Obama has any more ability to render it than all the previous presidents since the original UN charter, and I'd no more suggest any solution other than the obvious (sorta like he said, actually: two states, borders based on 1967. Based on. Not exactly like. BASED ON. With "mutually agreed upon land swaps") than I'd opine that teabaggers will eventually look inward. But his speech was yet another lesson in the blind and deaf and absolutely destructive hatred of Obama that permeates the right wing of our politics, to the doom of us all.

The entire narrative from the RWS™ ignores that what Obama said is pretty much the same as what at least the last two presidents have said. (Too bad, in my opinion.) They willfully ignore, editing falsely as usual, like they inhale and exhale, what he actually said, some of which, in fact, was decidedly pro-Israel.

Presumedly the front-runner from the right, now that The Donald and Huck have pulled out like adulterers when the door knocks, and Newt has self-destructed simply by being himself, the panderer to whomever he thinks is the pandee of the moment, changer of positions like the rest of us change toothbrushes, Mitt has jumped in, predictably, finger in the wind and up his own ass at the same time. (Not impossible, assuming a certain level of flatulence.)

Consider this important point from an article that agrees with the "banality" of the 1967 language, and states how conservatives, in undermining Obama and arguing for the status quo, are condemning Israel to ultimate failure:

The shamelessness and opportunism of conservatives in government and media would astound, if movement conservatism hadn't extinguished any sparks of credibility years ago. They say that they are defending Israel while trying to perpetuate a status quo that isolates Israel internationally, dooms it through demographics to a small handful of equally noxious choices, and undermines the moral legitimacy of both the state and the righteous purpose of providing a safe home for Jews in the world. (How many movement conservatives, if they were honest and actually consistent in the application of their religious beliefs, would be forced to say that all Israeli Jews are condemned to hell?)

Nor is the current Israeli Prime Minister doing anything to dissuade the screamers.

To be surprised that RWS™ responded with their usual fact-free vitriol and distortions is to be surprised sewers stink; but their universal reaction does serve, once again, to validate everything I've always said about them. It's dishonest, it's shameful, it's destructive.

But mostly, notwithstanding its predictability, it's really really really depressing.