A musket is a primitive sort of gun, built and used in a
bygone era. Similar but deadlier guns are used in modern times along with other
weapons that the musketeers could not have imagined in their time. And in the
same way that they had musketeer stories to tell in the old days, we have
warmonger stories to tell in the modern era.
Also, in a manner somewhat similar to the thousand and one
stories that were told in a thousand and one nights, our modern warmongering
stories have dwindled – for the sake of brevity – to three of them, and told
over three days. Moreover they are told by the three warmongering characters
themselves; all of whom are Jewish (no surprise here,) and all of whom are
whining that the current President of the United States is not creating
rivers of blood to lift their spirits and make their hearts sing with joy.
Our first warmonger is Elliott Abrams who came up with:
“Obama just accidentally explained why his foreign policy hasn't worked,” published
on May 28, 2014 in the Washington Post. Our second is Charles Krauthammer who
came up with: “Obama's Ad Hoc Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “His West Point speech and his policy of retreat are
characterized by smallness.” It was syndicated to several publications, among
them, the May 29, 2014 edition of National Review Online. Our third warmonger
is none other than the original architect of the Iraq
holocaust, Paul Wolfowitz who came up with: “The Crumbling Deal on Syria 's Chemical Weapons” and the subtitle:
“Anyone who still thinks Assad will meet his obligations should study how Libya 's
disarmament went in 2004.” It was published on May 30, 2014 in the Wall Street
Journal.
Krauthammer being the smartest Jew to repeatedly screw his
own cause royally has written the most interesting story; one that describes
how the screwing is done as clearly as can be described. Look how he does that.
He first complains: “As for Obama's interventionists, they are described as
people 'who think military intervention is the only way for America to
avoid looking weak' … Name one person.” He goes on: “What actual earthlings are
eager for is sending military assistance to Ukraine 's woefully equipped
forces.” Forces? Did he say forces? What kind of forces are these? Ukrainian
nuns fidgeting rosaries? Or is it military forces?
Oh no, don't misunderstand me, he seems to say; and that's
because he is not making such request himself. It is “what the interim prime
minister [of Ukraine ]
asked for. Two months later, military assistance (military again?) was the first
thing Ukraine 's newly
elected president, said he wanted from the United States .” And to make sure
you do not misunderstand him ever again, Krauthammer makes himself clear with
this note: no boots on the ground. By that he means no American soldiers will
be sent to fight someone else's war.
So here you have a Jew – who always found something in
history to warn that if you fail to do this, the outcome will be the same as
when the Sudetenland was invaded – failing to remind the readers this time that
when America tried to help the South Vietnamese, she ended up fighting the war
for them; and when America tried to help the Afghans, she ended up fighting
them as they turned against her after defeating the old Soviet Union.
You don't understand, Krauthammer seems to cry out. He is
not the one to complain, he says. It is that: “most of the complaints are
coming from abroad,” he asserts. And so you ask: what's the significance of
this? And he tells you what that is by asking: “What is the world to think when
Obama … announces a drawdown of American forces followed by total liquidation within
two years?” What the Jew is advocating here is for the American troops to
remain in Afghanistan
till they are forced to evacuate under fire. This was the way they did it in Saigon on one of the most humiliating days for the
American military.
As to Paul Wolfowitz, he is not following the example of
Krauthammer who denied by omission the Jewish habit of using a historical
precedent to draw analogies with the current situation. Wolfowitz makes it
clear even in the subtitle that to know what goes on inside the head of Syria's
Assad today, one “should study how Libya's disarmament went in 2004,” ten years
ago.
So you ask: What's your point, Paul? And he seems to say:
Nothing. Just talk. It looks like the matter of chemical weapons will be
resolved one way or the other to the satisfaction of everyone. But the truth is
that Assad is a vicious killer who uses conventional weapons to wage war on his
own people, and Obama is doing nothing about it.
What does that mean in the grand scheme of things, Paul?
Like Krauthammer, Wolfowitz responds by invoking the reaction of foreigners. He
puts it this way: “It has left millions of Syrians embittered – along with
millions more across the Arab world – and has emboldened authoritarian rulers
to act aggressively from Ukraine
to the South China Sea .”
What he means to say is that if only Obama had bombed Syria , Putin of Russia and the Chinese leaders
would be trembling in their boots now, and would not have moved against Ukraine or the South China
Sea . Anyone out there believes any of this?
Now to Elliott Abrams. The first thing he does is invoke the
foreign view of things: “the policy will be of little comfort to our allies,”
he says. Okay, you say to yourself, and you read the article several times to
see what exactly that policy is, and why it will be of little comfort to the
allies. But guess what, Abrams does not know what the policy is. In fact, he complains
throughout the article that the President is not explaining things.
Abrams also speaks of successes that belong to the Bush era
for which Obama took credit; and he speaks of failures that Obama has not tried
to fix. But he says nothing about Obama's foreign policy except that it is weak
– says nothing about its shortcomings or about an alternative policy.
Still, he ends he article the way he began it by invoking
the view of foreigners. This time, however, he does it in a clever way by using
the President's own words against him: “Mr. Obama said that Russia 's aggression unnerves capitals in Europe,
while China 's
economic rise and military reach worry its neighbors.” And so Abrams adds his
own view: Their nerves won't be any better after listening to what he [Obama]
said.