Almost ruined economically by the
wars that the Jews pushed America into, the government of that nation mortgaged
much of its future by borrowing like crazy from its competitors to stay afloat
till it managed to stabilize its finances. What a good chunk of America's media
has not yet done, however, is stabilize its credibility when it comes to
matters that relate to Jewish or Israeli interests.
You can see how this works – or
does not – when you study the editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that
came under the title: “Republicans and Iraq” and the subtitle: “How Jeb Bush
could have answered the gotcha question.” It was published on May 15, 2015 in
the Journal.
Like the subtitle indicates, the
editorial is about Jeb Bush doing badly answering questions about the failed
presidency of his brother, George W. Bush. To give themselves credibility
regarding what they are about to say, the editors mortgaged their honor at the
outset by advancing the notion that they may not have done any better had they
been subjected to the same line of questioning as Jeb Bush. This is how they
put it: “Knowing what we know now, would we have urged President George W. Bush
to invade Iraq, as we did at the time?”
But that is nothing compared to
what is yet to come. In fact, you should prepare yourself for that moment by
thinking of hypocrisy as being a boulder that's sliding down the side of a
mountain. This done, read the following passage: “The answer to the question is
that it's not a useful one to answer, because statesmanship, like life, is not
conducted in hindsight.” Well, this is not just a boulder; it is the mountain
of hypocrisy on whose side the boulder is sliding down. It is so huge, it is
scandalous.
All you need to do to form a
mental picture of what happened here, is to monitor the WSJ/Fox-News twins, and
you'll realize that the two publications spend more time and effort than on
anything else digging what President Obama said on previous occasions to
contrast it with what he is saying now. They do this for the sole purpose of
making him look bad. And this is a mountain of hypocrisy with dimensions like
never seen before.
And guess what; there is more than
Jewish hypocrisy to this editorial. There is also the habit of telling the
other journalists how to conduct themselves. The Jews usually do this directly,
forcefully and in-your-face, but not this time. For a reason that becomes clear
later on, they chose to express themselves in a more humble, therefore more
subtle way this time. They said it like this: “The better question is what
lessons he would draw from Iraq that would inform his own decision-making if
confronted with similar circumstances.”
They answer their own question by
citing three lessons that could be drawn. The first is that “Presidents cannot
take the claims of their intelligence agencies as conclusive,” a mistake that
W. Bush made but could have avoided had he followed his father's approach when,
as CIA director, he organized a “Team B” panel of outside experts to question
the agency's work.
What the editors of the Journal
omitted from this part of the discussion is the role that Israel's intelligence
agency played – while relying on the trust that America, Britain and Germany
had in it – to deceive them all. In fact, the Israelis fabricated an elaborate
hoax to make it look like Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And this
was the only reason why America committed the blunder that broke its back, and
diminished it more than the Vietnam War ever did. With friends like the Jews,
who needs savage beasts to stab them in the back?
This leads to the second lesson
which the editors say Jeb Bush could draw from the Iraq war. It is that when
America goes to war, it should fight to win fast, and then hand the reins of
political power to the locals so as to let them solve their own problems. Here
too, the editors omitted the fact that the deadly blunder committed by America
was to listen to the Jews who suggested the duplication of the de-Nazification
of Germany by de-Baathifying Iraq. And this is what created the vacuum which is
now being filled by Iran, and by the outside forces that make gains from the
chaos that followed the dismantling of Iraq's bureaucracy and its military.