charles: associated press is wingnut outlet

well, they must be, right? they interpreted president obama's "1967 lines" rhetoric to mean the the pre-1967 borders, thus igniting a "wingnut fake outrage". and so the associated press joins the new york times and msnbc as outlets for racist wingnut teabaggery which willfully misinterpret the president's clear statements because they cannot abide a black man in power.

perhaps he should cut them some slack on their flawed interpretive skills. charles himself had to adjust his own post several times before abandoning his central premise that "1967 lines" obviously meant post-1967 lines. what was the real original point of the post? apparently it was that president obama said something which wingnuts are unjustifiably upset by; unjustifiably so not necessarily because they misunderstood him, willfully or not, but because there is no just basis for disagreement with president obama.

actually, it's not quite so. the true root of the matter is that there is no justifiable basis for disagreement with charles, who has no internal means of understanding the world, and so has to anchor himself to an external actor in order to orient his worldview, and the current president (as was his predecessor) is it. to disagree with president obama is to disagree with charles. in fact, the resulting effect is to cause charles to lash out defensively because what has happened is that you have backed him into a corner against the blank, empty wall of his limited intellect. so, when a poster argues effectively that "1967 lines" is universally understood to mean the pre-1967 borders, that obama's outline is the "saudi plan" and represents a break from precedent in u.s. mid-east policy, charles' best response is to down-ding him and insinuate that he is a "sleeper troll".

what more could charles say about obama's endorsement of the pro-palestinian saudi plan that he hadn't already said in 2008?

Obama apparently has been convinced by his gaggle of mildly to extremely anti-Israel advisors that the best hope for change is to give a one-sided deal concocted by a rabidly anti-Israel, totalitarian religious monarchy another chance.

to the question of whether charles has officially "thrown israel under the bus" by this point, do you suppose that this change in charles' positioning on u.s. mid-east policy classifies him as "mildly" or "extremely" anti-Israel?


********

one further wrinkle is worth mentioning here. once charles was forced to abandon his "correct interpretation" of "1967 lines", he replaced it with a couple of comments from apparent non-wingnuts lamenting the outrage and echoing the argument that obama's statement was not divergent from the standing u.s. policy as it has been for decades.

conspicuously omitted from this listing was hotair.com, johnson's favorite amongst examples of rabidly racist wingnut teabagger terroristic anti-obama hatespeech. the omission is conspicuous because hotair struck the exact identical position as charles and his examples:

There’s nothing wrong with this statement; it’s a fairly clear description of the position of the US for decades, if less than specific. It’s not new at all, and it barely touches on the biggest problems in the conflict, which is the right of return demanded by Palestinians and the status of Jerusalem. Framing the solution along the 1967 line is one of the recurring themes from the US since at least the Clinton administration, and is hardly unique to the US, either.

some informed speculation: if this had occurred somewhere in the span of two years to six months ago when charles had become rabidly anti-conservative yet remained staunchly pro-Israel, he might have framed this hotair post as evidence of a rising anti-semitism on the mainstream right.