Are they four musketeers? Or would they be four horsemen of
some kind of apocalypse? In real life, the four are no less than Charles
Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, Dennis Ross, and the collective known as the WSJ
editors where WSJ stands for Wall Street Journal.
For the past half century or so, the Jews and their lackeys
– represented here by these three characters and the one entity – have occupied
center stage in a scene where no one but them and them only was allowed to stand.
They played the lead and supporting roles as well as the extras; the producers,
directors, technicians, costume designers and makeup artists.
The theme of the drama they staged has always been
one-dimensional. It never varied from how to organize humanity, and make the
world compatible with the desire of the Jews to take control of it and run it
in a way that will make it safe for them to live in it as capriciously as they
are, yet be loved by those who suffer the consequences of their caprices? As a
reader, you will get a sense of all that from the four articles that were
written by the three characters and the entity.
Charles Krauthammer wrote: “The Problem with Obama's ISIS
Strategy,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The president's war
plan against the group suffers from a glaring mismatch of ends and means.” It
was published on September 11, 2014 in National Review Online. Michael Gerson
wrote: “President Obama's careful war on terrorism.” It was published in the
Washington Post on September 12, 2014. Dennis Ross wrote: “Islamists Are Not
Our Friends.” It was published on Sept 12, 2014 in the New York Times. The
editors of the WSJ wrote: Our Non-Ally in Ankara ,”
a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Turkey bugs out of the anti-ISIS
coalition. Why not a base in Kurdistan ?” It
was published on September 13, 2014 in the Journal.
Krauthammer was first to set the right tone for the
celebratory mood that followed. He heralded the following message for the Jews
and their lackeys to hear and be joyful: “President Obama said many of the
right things … Degrade and destroy … This alone will get him a bump in the
polls.” But then he cautions: “his [Obama's] strategic problem remains: the
disconnect between ends and means.” He goes on: “Beyond the strategy's
halfhearted substance is its author's halfhearted tone.” This means the Jews
must not count on Obama taking control of the world and handing it to them.
The same thing can be said about Gerson who heralded: “The
most compelling and encouraging parts of Obama's speech – his intention to
degrade and ultimately destroy the enemy” And he too follows with the caveat:
“It is reasonable to question the level of Obama's enthusiasm for a series of
options he has previously ignored, dismissed or mocked.” He is, however, a
little more hopeful that something will come out of Obama's initiative: “Obama
correctly identified some lessons of 9/11. First: Disrupt the immediate threat
… Second: Prevent the scale of the threat from growing in territorial havens.”
Still, there is the fear that: “Obama has an even more difficult job … Rolling
back a haven is not done from the air alone.” And this too means that the Jews
must not count on Obama taking control of the world and handing it to them.
As to Dennis Ross, he seems to have a plan to do just that.
He developed a new theory that may explain why the Jews have not been able to
use America 's
might, however considerable it may be, to realize their plan. It is that the
old fault lines in the Arab and Muslim worlds that the Jews were trying to
exploit no longer exist. There is a new fault line, he says, that should be
exploited: “It is characterized by a fundamental division between Islamists and
non-Islamists.” In effect then, he wants to play the old game according to new
rules that may stand in the way.
He explains what the new fault line is, and concludes that
because: “the administration is struggling to define a strategy – the Islamist
vs. non-Islamist divide creates an opening.” He tells how that will work but,
as it turns out there is nothing new in what he says, including this: “America should coordinate with Egypt and the
U.A.E. … Coordination will provide America with greater ability to
influence their actions.” Here again, he wants to play the old game not
realizing that the new rules may stand in the way.
Aside from that, he wants America
to actively compete against Iran
in the region which is not new, and he remarks that “during the recent conflict
in the Gaza Strip, there were demonstrations against Israel
in Europe – but not in the Arab states.” What
he does not say is that Europe supplies Israel with financial and military
aid, something that the Arab countries do not do. Thus, the citizens in Europe had something to demonstrate against but not those
in the Arab states.
There is worse because he goes on to lay down principles for
partnering with the non-Islamists while taking advantage of the new fault line
– one of the principles being: “We should press them on pluralism, minority
rights and the rule of law.” And this is where Dennis Ross shreds his whole
approach into confetti because what that means to them over there is different
from what it means to us over here. To them, it means hand your countries to
the Jewish organizations who will run them like the Jews have been running America 's
congress of pimps, prostitutes, madams and gigolos.
Finally, there is the WSJ editorial which demonstrates how
wrong the Jewish advisers have been, primarily because they based their
analysis not on realities as they existed on the ground, but on delusions and
fantasies that made them feel good as they dwelt on them.