If genius is measured by the extreme to which someone can
take something, it must be recognized that the Jews are an ingenious bunch
because they can shamelessly take something to its absurd extreme, and call
that moral clarity. And no one is more ingenious in this sense than Bret
Stephens of the Wall Street Journal whose latest column: “The Al Qaeda Obama
Forgot” was published in the Journal on August 6, 2013 under the subtitle: “The
short distance between the president's rhetoric on terror and its empirical
disproof.”
The first shameless act that Stephens commits this time is
to mention an utterance made by President Obama, contradicted a few months
later by a headline that appeared – guess where – on the front page of the Wall
Street Journal where Stephens works as one of the editors. He calls it: “The
second shortest distance between an Obama speech and its empirical disproof.”
Empiricism, you see, is what brews inside the head of a Jew because his fantasy
has always been his empirical reality.
So then, what is it that percolates inside the head of this
genius? It is the President's prediction that al Qaeda was on the path to
defeat, that the future of terrorism would only involve localized threats
which, if dealt with smartly and proportionately, will not rise to the level of
the 9/11 attack. What irritates Stephens is that the President called for the
repeal of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, an act of Congress he
considers to be a “declaration of war on al Qaeda,” and wants to see remain in
place.
To elaborate on his points, he gives detail of what he
considers to be empirical proof. Upon hearing this, you jump to your feet and
scream hysterically: What's that? Another 9/11 incident? Where? Where? New York ? Los Angeles ? Chicago ? No. No. Relax man, nothing of the sort has
happened. Nothing happened, you say? So then, where is the empirical proof?
I'll tell you where. It is that the Obama administration picked up some chatter
to the effect that something like a suicide bomber may walk into an American
embassy somewhere and blow himself up. As a precaution, the Administration
ordered the shuttering of embassies and consulates in the places where the
probability is high such incident may occur – if it will occur at all.
That's it? That's all the proof this guy is providing? Yup,
that's all the proof. Like I said, the genius of these people resides in the
fact that they can shamelessly take something to its absurd extreme, and call
it moral clarity. Moral clarity? What moral clarity is this guy providing? Good
question. Well, he quotes Republican Senator Chambliss who said this was
reminiscent of what he saw pre-9/11. Representative King, who is also a
Republican, warned that the attack could come in Europe or the US . But the big
deal as far as Stephens is concerned is that Senator Durban who is a Democrat –
emphasize Democrat – said this was “a big deal.”
But how is that a big deal? Here is the Stephens answer:
“it's a big deal that the executive branch of government has been operating on
a contrary set of assumptions.” What assumptions? The assumption that “the war
on terror was won – or won well-enough – to go home.” So now, you want to know
why he believes the war on terror has not been won. And he tells you why. He
says that the killing of Osama bin Ladden was only a symbolic victory. That
ending the war in Iraq
showcased America 's
lack of staying power. That substituting the Bush approach to detainees with an
approach heavy on drones failed to renew goodwill on the Arab street. Is that
all? That's the big deal?
Well, there is a little bit more. Being the Jew that he is,
Stephens does something that blows up in his face, demolishing the thesis he is
trying to construct. This is what he writes: “In fact, there was no goodwill to
renew in the first place, and the U.S.
is more unpopular in Pakistan
and Egypt
today than it was six years ago.” He has thus shown he is aware that the
animosity toward America in the Arab street was not caused by the Obama Administration
but that Mr. Obama was not successful at containing it – no worse than that.
And so, Stephens moves on with his litany to say that
staying out of Syria has
generated a new branch of al Qaeda in the Nusra Front which helped regenerate
the Iraqi branch which attracted jihadist recruits from Europe .
And all this, to his mind, is proof that al Qaeda was designed not as an
organization like General Motors but like Burger King, a model of multiple
branches. Who designed it that way? Was it bin Ladden? He doesn't say. But who
cares? It suits him to say so now, so he says it and that's that.
In any case. The fact that we now have the big deal we
discussed earlier, proves that to win the war on terror, Mr. Obama must reverse
all his policies and embrace the policy that was adopted by Congress under the
Bush Administration. It is to renew the war on terror, even intensify it. And
this means to have American soldiers fight everywhere al-Qaeda may go. But do
you realize where this would be according to Stephens? It is everywhere in the
Arab and Muslim lands; in Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia
– hell, it's the whole wide world.
But wait a minute. Did he not blow up this theory in his
face when he said there was no goodwill toward America in the Arab street now or
during the Bush Administration? Yes, that's exactly the point. And what this
means is that because chatter was picked up to the effect that a kid may wear
an explosive belt and try to blow himself up near an America building or inside
it somewhere in the world, Stephens and those of his mentality want America to
openly declare it is at war against the Arabs and the Muslims, and will fight
till death. Either all the Arabs and all the Muslims are killed or all
Americans are killed. This world is too small to accommodate both camps.
And this, my friend, is what Bret Stephens says he and his
people want for America
and for the world.
Who are his people? You find them at the Wall Street Journal
and Fox News.