What happens when a twelve-year-old boy suffers the
condition that most twelve-year-old boys suffer at that age? He believes he
knows everything there is to know, and that no one else knows as much as he
does.
If by chance he catches a teacher eat a bar of chocolate and
drink soda, he gets the idea he made the greatest discovery since the rise of
ancient Greece .
It is that teachers also like to eat junk food.
Because this is such a great secret, he tells no one about
it, but cannot get it out of his mind to be relieved of the nagging thought he
is surrounded by inferiors who do not know what he knows. So he decides to
share the secret with his twelve-year-old buddy who tells him that he too knows
something most people do not know. He says he discovered there was someone
called Socrates in ancient Greece .
Now relieved of the burden each carried for being alone and lonely in the ivory
tower of knowledge, the two go about growing up like a reformed Tweedledee and a Tweedledum.
This is a case we have come to know – in real life – under
the two names “editors of the Wall Street Journal” and “David Albright.” Much
has been written on this website that defines the editors of the Journal. As to
David Albright, he is the guy that defined himself by blaming the blunder he
made of asserting that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, on Saddam himself. It is that
Saddam Hussein had told the truth about not having WMDs when he was supposed to
have lied because Albright expected him to. This is so baffling a logic, even a
great philosopher like Socrates would have to down a bottle of whiskey before
he could make sense of it … if he'd ever wanted to bother with that.
I bet that the editors of the Wall Street Journal downed
more than a bottle before they could come up with the editorial they wrote
under the title: “Loopholes for the Mullahs” and the subtitle: “Secret side
deals allow Iran to skirt limits in the nuclear deal.” It was published on
September 2, 2016 in the Journal.
The editors begin their piece like this: “Socrates is
rumored to have said that the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing, and
maybe we should adopt a version of the Greek philosopher's motto when it comes
to the nuclear deal with Iran .”
That would certainly be a way to relieve themselves of the burden they knew a
secret that was never a secret. It is just that they – not being experts in
nuclear issues – did not know details of the nuclear deal until it was revealed
to them by the not so bright David Albright who was schooled in nuclear matters
but not so much in logical thinking.
But why is it that when a Tweedledee gets together with a Tweedledum, they produce something that
is so laughable it can never be taken seriously? This happens when the editors
learn from someone like Albright they don't know everything, thus blame their
ignorance on a White House that didn't instruct them enough – they who thought
they knew so much, they didn't need a lesson from the White House. Go figure.
But what is it that's bothering them now? They tell you what
it is: “We are learning that what the administration says Iran can do, and what Iran is allowed to do, are not the
same.” They give the example of the agreement specifying that “Iran is to
limit its stockpile of reactor-grade uranium to no more than 300 kilograms.” So
now comes this guy Albright and says there are exceptions in the deal that must
have escaped the editors.
Well, anyone that has worked in industry would know what
that is. Logistics can at times compel you to have an extra kilogram here or
there (not always in its final form) which you'll have to deal with eventually.
But that's not how the Tweedles see things. Instead, they say this: “Had those
exemptions not been created out of thin air, some of Iran 's nuclear facilities would not
have been in compliance with the deal.” What tells you that Albright has not
fully instructed the dumb part of the Tweedles is that they say the exemptions
were created – not out of necessity – but “out of thin air.” It is also obvious
that none of the editors ever worked in industry.
They go on to give a few more examples of “discrepancy” that
amount to no more than a hill of beans. This done, they try to strengthen their
argument by doing what they always do. They say if you're not outraged yet, you
will be when you learn that the administration did something similar on
previous occasions. And they add: We're not going to fully discuss that now
because we expect you to take it on faith that we're telling the truth.
Here is how they put it: “The non-denial would be more
credible if the administration hadn't agreed to Iran inspecting its own facilities.
It would also be more credible if Iran weren't testing ballistic
missiles. Iran
also chose to deploy its newly acquired S-300 air defense system”.
Being Jews through and through, they now shoot themselves in
the foot. They do it saying this: “The [Albright] report notes that Congress
was informed of the exemptions but there was never public disclosure.” They
have just accused the Congress of being a part of the White House cabal of
secrecy.