John Bolton has proven himself to be as delusional in
matters relating to post-election analysis as he has been in matters relating
to the national security of the United
States . He always advanced the cause of Israel 's ambitions while pretending to talk
about America 's
security, and he is doing it again while pretending to analyze the results of
the just conducted mid-term elections.
He does that in the article which he wrote under the title:
“National security & 2016,” published on November 8, 2014 in the Pittsburgh
Tribune. His objective in writing the article becomes clear at the end when
hitting the very last sentence. Talking about Hillary Clinton, John Bolton asks
this question: “Can anyone doubt that critiquing her unswerving support for and
implementation of Obama's foreign policies will be key to the campaign of
whomever Republicans nominate to oppose her?”
To reach his objective, Bolton bolts right out the gate with
the assertion that: “U.S.
national security was one of the determining issues in 2014's Senate and House
elections, contributing to Republican victories.” But then, he does something
in the same paragraph which throws doubt as to his belief in his own assertion.
This reality becomes clear to the reader when he first displays certainty:
“Contrary to the political conventional wisdom, American voters understand...”
but then quotes a dead Englishman to tell what it is that the American voters
understand: “The first duty of the sovereign (is) that of protecting society.”
As if this were not enough to weaken his argument, he does
the very Jewish thing of predicting the future, not only as he sees it, but
also as seen by adversaries that surprised the whole world every step of the
way by their unpredictability. Look at the following and marvel at the
mentality that conceived it: “our adversaries are calibrating their policies to
take maximum advantage of the Obama administration's remaining two years.” Can
you believe this guy or take him seriously?
His argument is so weak by now; there is only one thing to
do to put it out of its misery. It is to administer to it the coup de grace.
And here he comes to do just that: “While most people understandably focus on
issues closest to them, particularly the domestic economy, this hardly proves
they are uninterested in international threats and challenges.” The man felt
compelled to say this because the voters made it clear that the economy was
their first priority whereas national security barely registered on their
radar. It also explains why he felt compelled to buttress his argument with a
quote from a dead Englishman.
Left with an argument that has been reduced to a dead corpse
by an American citizenry that does not play ball with warmongers of his brand,
he could only do one of two things. He could attack the American public for not
grasping the extent of the foreign threat it is facing, or he could attribute
to it hidden qualities that keep its understanding of the threat from view. He
chose the second approach: “As the practical people they are, U.S. citizens
expect the officials to master the intricacies of national-security issues.”
He goes on to attribute more hidden qualities to the
American public because he needs to use that to get to the point where he can
analyze the results of the election, and to show that the public voted not on
economic issues but on national security issues. He also needed to show why
these issues will be paramount in the 2016 presidential election when Hillary
Clinton is expected to represent the Democratic Party.
Thus, using long and winding rants, he explains how neither
the President nor members of the Congress spoke “to their fellow citizens as
adults about foreign threats [or] propose effective solutions.” He goes on: “All
the while, the American people were silently awaiting politicians to speak the
obvious truth.” And there is worse because apathy applied not only to Democrats
but also: “Republicans collectively did not adequately critique Obama's
failures or inattention to national security.”
Despite all this, he found three Republicans who won not
because they endorsed his kind of warmongering, but because two of them
happened to be veterans of the Iraq
war, and one who “fought off an isolationist challenger in the Republican
primary.” Against that, there was a Republican that lost to a Democrat, having
come “from a double-digit deficit … and nearly won an upset victory” but did
not.
Looking ahead to the 2016 elections, he warns that the White
House and the Congress will be at stake when national-security issues will grow
in political importance. And Hillary Clinton will be there too.