The only reason The New York Times published this comment is that it could be read to be pro ‘Arab Spring.’ (Picture Julie Andrews in a burka running through the hills singing ‘The hills are alive, with the sound of stonings. With stones they have thrown- at women -for a thousand years.’)
My continuing experiment on walking the line between truthfulness & ambiguity in comment submission continues. They never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever publish even the most polite, delicate, perfectly spelled, proper, apologetic disagreement with them or the president. They especially don’t like it when I include links to previous newspaper articles in their own paper proving they’re full of bullcr*p.
As far as the topic of Obama’s ‘big speech’ on Middle-East policy is concerned, the Times reports that Obama may ‘surprise’ us with a call to abandon Israel! Yeah! He might actually call for their 1967 U.N. charter/borders to be redrawn…
…Cuz it’s not tense enough over there already and Bam-Bam had an unstruck match.
Article & Comment here -> http://community.nytimes.com/comments/thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/obamas-middle-east-speech-has-many-american-audiences/?permid=2#comment2