If you believe that Rudy Giuliani is the only loser in the Trump Team that seems to slide into a state of madness, you have not been attentive lately. Whereas Giuliani's madness represents a small danger to America, something else is happening that has the potential to start a war with catastrophic consequences.
You can get a sense of what
this is when you read the piece that came under the title: “Joe Biden can calm
Iran war talk by backing off vow to bring back Obama's nuke deal,” an editorial
that was published on November 20, 2020 in the New York Post.
To better understand this
editorial, we need to start with a couple of definitions. The word “scatter”
means to break something and spread out the parts. The word “scatterbrain”
refers to people who are incapable of thinking logically, fail to see the
nexuses that hold together the parts of a single idea, thus scatter the parts
all over the place and fail to appreciate the reality of an existing situation.
Scatterbrain is the word that
comes to mind when you read the editorial of the New York Post. This is a piece
that's made of 383 words. The first 12 words go like this: “Joe Biden's victory
has touched off new fears of war with Iran.” It means that the editors of the
New York Post are linking Biden's victory with war. Since neither Biden nor
Iran would start such a war, the editors mean to say that the Trump
administration would be the one to start it.
And then, in the
middle of the editorial, comes a paragraph made of 41 words that read as
follows:
“Since the Obama-Biden folks
turned a blind eye to Iran's evil to reach the nuke deal, the regime may think
Biden's victory means it can again get away with such belligerence again –– and
perhaps even extort concessions in the process”.
The hint in that passage is to
the effect that Donald Trump would start a war with Iran before leaving office,
perhaps believing that Iran will take advantage of the Biden victory to extort
concessions from his administration, the way that it did when Barack Obama was
President. Or perhaps unstable Donald Trump would start a war for an entirely
different reason.
And lastly come a paragraph
and a half near the end of the editorial, which go as follows when crammed
together into a single paragraph:
“The Obama administration
tried to discourage Israel from even covert action against the Iranian menace.
Team Trump helped enable it. What will Biden choose? Fear of escalating
hostility and ramped up nuke development may also be worrying Trump, who
reportedly sought options to stop Iran”.
The suggestion here is that
Donald Trump had decided to act on the constant Judeo-Israeli drumming to
attack Iran regardless of the cost to the people of the region and the rest of
the world, including America. Trump sought options from his military, and when
they were analyzed by the Security Council, which includes the military, the
overwhelming opinion was that if Trump got away with giving Israel and the Jews
what belonged to the Palestinians and the Syrians, he will not get away giving
them what will result in lost American lives and wasted American money.
The brutal message being that
if Donald Trump wants to fight the Iranians, America's generals will gladly give
him a gun and take him to the border where he can shoot a few bullets in the
air, and before he gets his ass kicked by the Iranians, turn around and run
into the arms of Netanyahu where he'll receive his much cherished pat on the
back, and maybe a kiss on the cheek too.
And so, my friend, as can be
seen from what came at the start of the editorial, in the middle of it and at
the end of it –– are the scattered parts of one and the same idea; all relating
to the Judeo-Trumpian desire to plunge America into a war with Iran. They wish
to do so, not because Iran is suspected to have weapons of mass destruction at
this time, but because some of its leaders are suspected by the Jews to harbor
the desire to produce weapons of mass destruction at some distant future.
Well then, this being the
truth as you'll find it scattered all over the editorial, what did the
scatterbrained editors of the New York Post make of it? Here is what they made
of it:
“Iran triggered the fears when
a UN nuclear watchdog confirmed that Tehran has begun operating underground
centrifuges and has enriched and stockpiled uranium in violation of the 2015
deal. Iranian-backed group fired rockets at the US embassy in Iraq. Iran's
neighbors are worried: Officials from Israel sounded alarms. Who can blame
them? Tehran won't change: it built up its missile arsenal and sparked violence
in Israel and elsewhere. Biden can do much good by letting the mullahs know: He
won't be a patsy. And a change in the White House won't weaken America's
resolve”.
As can be seen, the editors
blame Iran for the occupant of the White House growing desirous of Netanyahu's
pat on the back, and deciding to risk WW III to receive it. To make it sound
like their blame of Iran has merit, the editors mentioned old news that were
dismissed as having little or no consequence; these being the centrifuges, the
stockpile of uranium and the rocket attack on the American embassy.
This done, the editors of the Post ended their piece by counseling the incoming president to tell the mullahs of Iran he won't be a patsy. What is not clear is if the editors meant patsy to the Mullahs who wish to have nothing to do with America, or patsy to the Jews of America and Israel who wish to cannibalize what's left of America.