Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman wrote an article: “The danger
of repeating the cycle of American isolationism,” and had it published in the
Washington Post on April 25, 2013. You read that title and you say to yourself:
here we go again; a Jew and a non-Jewish Neocon that is more extreme than a
radical Jew – both advocating arming America to the teeth. And you
wonder if this has anything to do with the longstanding Jewish demand that America stand by Israel like a bodyguard allowing it
to launch ill-advised misadventures, and protect it when it gets into trouble
like it always happens.
You start to read the article and it does, in fact, cause
you to scratch your head. It does that as the authors give three historical examples
as to when the United States
of America tried to retrench from the world
but was called by events to remain engaged. These were (1) The time after WW I
when America
tried to retrench economically and politically from the world. (2) Right after
WW II when America
retrenched by reducing its military spending. And (3) After the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991 when America
slashed its defense spending.
The two authors then express the fear that America may
want to retrench economically and politically now that progress is seen to have
been made in the fight against al Qaeda. You also notice that nothing was said
up to this point about the military, which is something that pleases you. But
you remain skeptical because the long experience you had with these people has
taught you a few lessons that are hard to forget. What puzzles you the most and
causes you to scratch your head is that the authors make no mention of the
Vietnam war either – which is the only war that America admits to have lost. So you
ask yourself: Do Kyl and Lieberman see an American retrenchment after this war?
But they are not saying anything in this regard one way or the other.
You think about it and ponder in the quiet of your thoughts
that if Kyl and Lieberman say America retrenched after the three encounters it
won, but did not retrench after the one it lost, what did they mean when they
expressed the fear that America was about to retrench now? Do they believe that
the progress made against al Qaeda is not sufficient to be classified as a win?
You're not sure what they meant to say, and so you posit tentatively that they
bungled this part of the presentation by being ambiguous.
As if this were not enough, the two authors now torpedo the
main point they have been trying to illustrate. Look at this part of their
argument: “After W W II , US America
has retrenched? This is a mystery that needs to be resolved.
To do so, you begin by wondering if they are not making
another point that is so subtle; it remains invisible to the naked eye. And you
find a hint as to what it might be in the following: “Rather than cutting first
and then asking how we can manage with what's left, we must define our
priorities and interests – and only then determine how to allocate resources.
There must be a reasoned discussion of the ways in which diplomatic
retrenchment and military budget cuts may limit our capacity to achieve
critical goals.” Whoa! What in the world is this convoluted mumbo jumbo about?
You wonder why they accuse someone they do not identify of
cutting first and asking questions later. Who could that be? You notice that
having done this, they advise that priorities and interests must be defined
before allocating resources, but they make no contribution to this part of the
debate. What would be the priorities? What would be the interests? Still, they
go on to say that for this to happen, a reasoned discussion must ensue as to
the ways that the cuts of the military budget, among others, will limit the
capacity to achieve critical goals. What critical goals need to be achieved? Is
this the Kyl and Lieberman way to conduct a “reasoned” discussion?
And then it hits you and you shout your Eureka ! So that's it. That's what it's all
about. They gave the reader a big runaround to admit in the end that what they
mean to say is that the military budget must not be cut. They come to this
conclusion not by offering a reasoned discussion but by asking for one. Thus,
in a typical Jewish fashion, they first put down the conclusion then ask the
reader to find a reasoned debate that will support it. How so very Jewish! How
so very Neocon!
In effect then, the two authors pretended to talk about
humanitarian aid to the needy, and pretended to talk about trade exchanges with
the world but all they wanted was procure for America
what will be useful to Israel .
The military budget is what keeps the Israeli parasite strong enough to cause
mischief and mayhem, and this was the subtle part of their argument. As to the
visible part, it was a fake discussion used as a vehicle to carry the subtle
part, cloak it and move it along. This approach was hidden from the naked eye;
it was the mystery that needed to be resolved. It has now been resolved.
Like two horsemen, Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman have once
again called for an American war without end against humanity. They wish to
revive and to maintain the apocalypse that broke the back of America ; that made it lose every encounter it
had in Asia and Africa ; and that made it
disrespected the world over. They want more of the same old Jewish dream that
will never be fulfilled.