Israel, part II

Ok, Wall Street Journal. We get it.

Normally the editorial page of the WSJ is where we look first for the explanation of a political event. They are consistently the best at explaining the issues and providing a sound opinion (except on Immigration reform). We then supplement their write-up with the opinions in our favorite blogs - listed at the left.

Twice, in as many days, the page has had a piece praising Obama's Middle East speech. Supposedly, everything except Obama's demand for Israel to revert to its 1967 borders was an "inspiring vision of US policy amid the political upheavals sweeping the region."

We don't know what those other suggestions were, and we can't stomach watching the speech or even reading it for we have fully rejected the speaker and his ideology. But here we are. The WSJ is our guide and it is telling us there were some good ideas.

We post this for two reasons:
1) full disclosure that we won't pile on just to pile on, and that we try to keep an open, albeit conservative, mind, and
2) this is a stunning example of the MSM's decline in steering a story. Even the WSJ can't get traction with one of its loyal readers.

Obama may have the MSM, and they may work overtime to cover for him. But if the Dear Leader has the absurd notion that he can tell an ally to change its borders by giving land to its most evil of enemies, he is mistaken to think the MSM can contain the damage.

WSJ 5.20: Obama's Freedom Agenda
WSJ 5.21: The 1967 Line of Fire