Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Will this be Drama with a classic Climax?

On September 8, 2014 Marc A. Thiessen of the Washington Post said that George W. Bush was right. Two days later, the editors of the Wall Street Journal said that Dick Cheney was right at the time, and continues to be right at this time. Thiessen said it in a column that came under the title: “George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout” whereas the Journal editors wrote a piece that came under the title: “Dick Cheney is Still Right” and the subtitle: “Obama's return to Iraq reveals how wrong he has been about the world.”

The first thing to strike the readers looking at this approach to punditry is that partisanship has become so blinding in America, the pundits have stopped pontificating, and have turned to spinning the events so as to claim victory while standing on a stage that is paved with a thick layer of defeats … so much so that the whole country is staggering, unable to move forward. The puzzling part is: Where do these people hope to find victory?

Thiessen tells of the time when President George W. Bush spoke against pulling American troops out of Iraq saying that if this were to be done by his successor, the probability will increase that “American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” Thiessen then adds this comment: “He had no idea at the time how prophetic his words would be.” And this is the only time that Thiessen was correct about something. It is that W. Bush had no idea what he was talking about because the words were put in his mouth by speechwriters who knew where they were taking the country.

This is alluded to at the end of the column where the author writes of the consequences of America's withdrawal from Iraq saying this: “The results were entirely predictable. Indeed, they were predicted – by George W. Bush.” Well, if the W had no idea how prophetic his words would be, but predicted what was entirely predictable, whose prediction was that? There is only one answer: It was the prediction of his Jewish speechwriters who put words in his mouth, and got him to speak them not knowing what he was saying … until it was too late. Or is it late in the day?

No one knew what was going on better than the editors of the Wall Street Journal who, together with the Jewish network in America, plotted to turn the country into the fuel whose consumption has been feeding what they regard as the triumph of World Jewry and the glory of Israel. Now that the fuel is about to be exhausted, the characters that burned it are looking for someone to blame. That someone happens to be the current President, Barack Obama.

They begin their piece pleading innocence in a way that is not surprising. They say that the victim of their machination has admitted his error – well, he did not admit directly but tacitly. Here is that passage: “He [Obama] is tacitly admitting that the liberal critique of the Bush Administration's approach to Islamic terrorism was wrong.” And they explain that “Mr. Obama won the Presidency by arguing that the U.S. had alienated the world and the Muslims by recklessly using force abroad.” They conclude that this approach has failed as shown by the fact that Obama sees the need to return to Iraq.

Like Thiessen who blew his own analysis, the editors of the Journal demonstrate how seriously flawed their conclusions are. Look at this: “The U.S. absence left Syria's battleground to … the Qataris, who have funded Islamic State and the al Qaeda affiliated al-Nusrah.” The crux of the matter is that the only Arab or Muslim nation on the side of the terrorists is Qatar where America maintains a massive naval base. Why is that? Because the Qataris know they now have the same condition that Saudi Arabia had when Bin Laden engineered the 9/11 event. They are telling potential terrorists: Yes, we are letting the Americans desecrate our land, but bear with us for now, and we'll pay you off as long as you don't touch us.

As to the rest of the Arab World, President Obama has managed to bring it into a coalition not much different from what Bush 41 did when he ousted Saddam from Kuwait. Had Obama not extended his hand in friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims, America would today be fighting terrorism alone, at the same time that its Jewish Fifth Column and money hungry traitors in the Congress are undermining it from within.

Just listen to Cheney and Cheney talk, and you'll know what betrayal of country sounds like. But are these people going to win? Or will Obama's effort prove to be the denouement of a historic drama bound to have a classic climax?

Well, the best drama is written according to a formula that says, you begin the story with evil pretending to be good while portraying the good as being evil. You develop the plot and the characters in such a way as to make the reversal of roles unexpected yet plausible. For this to happen, you continue to show evil as winning till the reversal is near to completion at which time evil realizes it has had the rug pulled from under it. You have him stage a last hooray, and this is when the good delivers the ultimate blow, soundly defeating him.

ISIS may turn out to be the last hooray that Obama will soundly defeat along with the Thiessens, the editors of the Journal and the Cheney traitors of this world.