Do you remember the old saying: “We did everything right but
the patient died”? It was used to express sarcasm at the people who refuse to
admit that things went badly because they handled them badly.
Well then, what would be the reverse of that? Let's say the
reverse might go something like this: “They did everything wrong but the
patient lived anyway.” And you know what, my friend? This should be used to
express sarcasm at the people who refuse to give credit where credit is due,
but keep challenging the motives of those who repeatedly get things right.
In fact, that's the standard by which the folks at the
Weekly Standard operate. You can see it in the article that came under the
title: “Amid Dissent at State, Obama Stays the Bloody Course on Syria ,” written
by Lee Smith and published on June 23, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. If you were
to list all the things they have been saying President Obama did wrong, you'd
think America
was dead by now. But America
is still here – alive and well – and the Standard gives weird explanations to
account for this miracle.
Using as prop a letter that was written by a number of
anonymous characters – the infamous memo that called on the Obama
administration to implement everything in the book of Judeo-Israeli talking
points – Lee Smith dismisses the significance of the American people expressing
increased confidence in their President. To lend credence to his
incomprehensible stance, he attributes bad motives to Obama's success at
preserving lives, limbs and treasure.
The baffling question is this: How did Smith do it? The
answer is that he first mutilated history. Actually, to be precise, he accepted
the mutilation of history as formulated in the letter of the anonymous signatories.
Whereas it used to be that Bashar al-Assad must go because he is a monster, it
became the position of the anonymous ones and that of the Weekly Standard that:
“The point of military action is not to topple Assad militarily, but rather to
earn the United States a better negotiating position at the table with Iran and
Russia”.
It is obvious that this crowd views having a strong hand to
play with when at the negotiating table, is a privilege that must be earned the
way that male kangaroos earn the right to mate with the females – by fighting
and winning the fight. Still, when nations go to war, they do so using the
young among the population. For this reason, the instigators of war give a
rough estimate of the lives, limbs and treasure they are prepared to sacrifice
to earn that privilege. And yet, this is something that neither the anonymous
authors of the infamous letter nor the operators of the Weekly Standard,
bothered to do.
As to Obama's response to the anonymous letter, Smith says
he is not surprised that “the White House immediately rejected the possibility
of any change in Syria
policy.” And that's where you expect the Jewish fun to begin. In fact, it seems
to do so when Lee Smith asks the question: “Why is that?” Unfortunately,
however, in answering the question, he fails to deliver.
Having anticipated new “bombshell” ideas that would have
revved-up the activities of your brain cells like a beehive, you feel let down
because Smith only offers the equivalent of stale bread with which to feed your
thoughts. The offer is stale because it consists of old ideas resubmitted
without even the slightest of modification. See if you can find nourishment in
this: “Obama's foreign policy legacy, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,
depends greatly on whether or not Iran abides by the deal or crashes
it.” That's the same old song, lifted from the Judeo-Israeli talking points. It
is as if Smith and company promised a Cadillac performance but only delivered a
rickshaw performance.
This is so puzzling, you want to know what the Jews do next,
and Lee Smith delivers enough to satisfy your curiosity. Having asserted that
Obama was motivated by the desire to preserve the Iran nuclear deal, Smith now
tackles the motive of the other players. And the way he does that is by
engaging in convenient speculation as can be seen in this passage:
“Those State Department officials who stayed on may have
convinced themselves that only their continued presence prevented the
implementation of an even more disastrous Syria policy. Presumably that's
what's kept Ambassador Samantha Power at the United Nations”.
You're tired of this game and you want to drop it to do
something else. But you also want to avoid the feeling that you wasted your
time. So you convince yourself you learned something today.