Have you ever heard someone utter the English idiom: “Them
are fighting words”? If you didn't, here is an example of that: “A President at
war can survive a military setback, but lost credibility is fatal.” It took the
editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) to utter these words. And if you want
to know who these people are fighting, it is the President of the United States of America .
They made him their enemy because he stands in the way of them taking complete
control of the country, and implementing the current Jewish agenda.
They uttered those words at the opening of an article they
wrote under the title: “Honesty and Ground Troops” and the subtitle: “When
fighting a war, one of the worst sins is gradualism.” They published the thing
on September 18, 2014. In fact, the word “gradualism” appears near the end of
an article that turns out to be nothing better than the fashioning of a new
military doctrine tailor-made to suit their current agenda.
Their agenda is to play in the hands of those in control of
the Islamic State. The Jewish leaders have always wanted a war of the religions
pitting what they call Judeo-Christianity against the Muslim World … and they
found someone on the other side willing to face them. Even though the
Arab-Muslim Establishment and the Christian Establishment do not want this war,
a relatively small number of Muslims have managed to pull off a coup that gave
them the opportunity to take up the Jewish challenge. At the same time, a handful
of Jewish-Israeli operatives headed by the likes of the WSJ have managed to do
the same in America ,
and to prepare for playing in the hands of those who want war on the other
side.
And now that the war of the wackos is about to get going in
earnest, the WSJ editors want to make sure it will be fought the way they
envisage it. They ran afoul of Colin Powell's doctrine once before when their
agenda and his goal diverged, but things have changed since that time, and
their new agenda happens to converge with Powell's old doctrine. And so, they
sort of apologize for their past behavior, and invoke his doctrine like this:
“We've had our disagreement with Colin Powell over the years, but there's a
reason the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force gained a military following.”
What they wanted then was a perpetual war that will have
Armageddon as ultimate goal – whether or not attainable – and they saw that
Powell was not going to give them satisfaction. What they want now is a
perpetual war that will have Armageddon as ultimate goal – whether or not
attainable – but a war that does not include the Islamic State as a player
because they see in it a rising Muslim giant at the very moment that the fake
Jewish giant has been unmasked in Gaza, and shown to be a castrated midget.
They reckon, therefore, that the old Powell Doctrine will serve their current
agenda just fine … until further notice.
But this is not all that the WSJ editors want. And you can
see it in the following passage: “Mr. Obama's ground troops pledge is also
short-sighted politically. His goal may be to tamp down anxieties on the
Democratic left … The political risk is what happens when the newspapers start
to report that CIA agents and Army Special Forces are in fact on the ground
with Kurdish or Iraqi troops?” In essence then, they are blackmailing the
President by warning him that they will divulge America 's
secrets to the commanders of the Islamic State so as to frustrate America 's
strategy if need be.
Deception being a big part of a war strategy, imagine what
would have happened if during the war on Saddam, someone had divulged the
American strategy of making the Iraqi leader believe that they will not invade
from land, but will from the sea whereupon he amassed his troops there, leaving
his flank unguarded. And that was precisely from where they invaded.
In fact, neither Powell nor Schwarzkopf suffered fatal
credibility for doing this, and neither will President Obama for saying there
will be no American boots on the ground, and then surprise the enemy by putting
troops on the ground.