John Podhoretz always comes through when you need evidence
that you must never listen to a Jew equipped with a skull that is vacuumed of
its gray matter, and a belly that is equipped with a volcano spewing molten
lead. He has done it again in a column that came under the title: “The
Disastrous consequences of Obama's inaction against ISIS ”
published on September 3, 2014 in the New York Post.
Somewhere in the middle of the column, he talks about Libya to remind the reader that “we abandoned
the place with US personnel
evacuated by helicopter in a disturbing parallel to the flight from Saigon in April 1975.” But guess what, my friend, that
was almost 40 years ago when the current president, Barack Obama – whom he reviles
so vehemently – was barely a teenager and had nothing to do with the Vietnam
War.
Instead of seeing the true depths of the Vietnam-Libya
parallel, Podhoretz sees a two-dimensional scene, and blames the pain it
produces not on what led America
to it but on Obama, the man he prejudged in spite of the evidence. In so doing,
Podhoretz has ignored the historical fact that long ago, the French involvement
in Vietnam went so badly,
they called on America
to come and participate in their ill-advised adventure. More recently, the
French took the suggestion of a so-called Jewish philosopher and got involved
in Libya , having called on America to come
and participate in yet another ill-advised adventure.
With the two adventures gone so very badly, the vacuumed skull
that was supposed to do the thinking, yielded to the infernal belly that drew a
most illogical conclusion. It decided that when the opportunity to
“participate” in another adventure presents itself, the best thing for America to do
is to jump right into it. No need to be cautious or think through the whole
thing before getting into a situation that will most likely resemble Vietnam or Libya .
What Podhoretz is incapable of grasping is that for every
action there is a reaction. The job of a leader is to assess that potential
reaction before causing it ... and devise a response to it ahead of time. He
must also put together an exit strategy for when something goes wrong, or if
the mission goes smoothly to completion. He will do all that before rushing impulsively
into action, and pile defeats that will sully the history books of the nation.
Unable to see any of this, and driven by the inferno that is
raging in his belly, Podhoretz blames the ills of the world on Obama's cool
demeanor as if the President had a magic wand he could wave and make the bad
things go away but is refusing to use it … because of what? Podhoretz is not
telling.
But he speaks of “disastrous consequences” which – in logic
– means cause and effect. And yet, the cause he speaks about is the vacuum of
inaction. This cannot be. What can happen at times, however, is that a cause
may exist that will not necessarily lead to an effect (perhaps a disastrous
consequence) unless it is augmented by a vacuum. If this is what Podhoretz
meant to say, he should have described the original cause, and shown how the
vacuum served to augment it, thus led to the consequences he mentions.
It is necessary to follow this procedure when explaining a
complex situation in which you accuse someone of something because to do
otherwise is to try selling the public not on a basket full of food, but sell
it on the two-dimensional picture of a basket of food for thought. It is not
worth the paper it is printed on unless you're a paper-eating goat, and you can
be satisfied with this sort of thing.