Suppose someone came to you and said: “I am the best
qualified to advise you, and this is why you should hire me.” So you ask: “What
are your qualifications?” And he says: “I am a Jew, and I have no idea what I'm
talking about.” Would you hire him?
You think I'm making a joke, don't you my friend? Well, let
me tell you this is not a joke. It's what has happened time after time with the
American government repeatedly hiring from the swarm of Jews who, after getting
the job, gave one and the same advice time after time. With this kind of
performance, they sent America
deeper and deeper into the Jewish cesspool from which there was never an exit
strategy or a plan B to fall back on.
But what could be the advice that the Jews gave time after
time? It was this: “Attack here, attack there, attack everywhere.” Wow! And the
attacks failed, or produced nothing good as I understand it. Well then, what
happened after the fiasco that each attack produced? If you want to know, you
better sit down, wrap a bandana tightly around your head to prevent it from
exploding, and hear the answer. This was the answer given by the Jew: I'll
remind you of what I said that was correct, America ; of what you did that was
wrong; and why you should hire me again for the next assignment.
If you're still in one piece, my friend, let me tell you
where you can go to verify what I'm telling you. In fact, you won't have to go
too far because you'll only need to Google The Washington Times. That's where
you'll find an article published under the title: “The Battle of Mosul” and the
subtitle: “The Islamic State will take a beating, but the 'tide of war' will
not recede,” written by Clifford D. May and published on October 25, 2016.
In case you don't know, this guy Clifford May is the one who
founded the comical troupe “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” an outfit
he put together right after the 9/11 event, he says. He never explained why he
thought he could defend the democracies, or why he needed to do this work. He
has been at it for fifteen years now, always inciting America to
attack one Arab country or another, one Muslim country or another. He has been
musing about each fiasco after it happened, and has been advising on what America should
do next. In fact, this is the content of his current article.
He starts the discussion by admitting: “It is probably only
a matter of time before Mosul
is liberated” and he ends it with his usually pessimistic viewpoint: “While the
Battle of Mosul is likely to be a military victory, it would be unwise for him
[Obama] to claim that the 'tide of war is receding.'” Between the start of the
discussion and its end, he tells of events that unfolded over the years. These
would be events he never predicted correctly no matter how much he tried to
connect the fake dots of his imagination. And not once in this discussion does
he demonstrate the inclination to say he was wrong at any time in all those
years.
In fact, he refuses to take ownership of any fiasco to which
he contributed a little or contributed a substantial amount. He does that to
let it be known he wants to remain in the driver's seat, intending to keep
giving advice to America
on what to do past the Obama victory. Thus, he begins this part of the
discussion with the supposition: “Imagine that the Islamic State ends up with
little or no territory under its control”.
He takes it from there and puts down all kinds of
speculations (like the bad old days,) to create all kinds of fake dots which he
connects together (like the bad old days,) and comes up with all sorts of fake
scenarios (like the bad old days,) to then make the suggestion: Attack here,
attack there, attack everywhere (like the bad old days.) Here is how he put his
philosophy in words:
“The peoples of the world are in for an extended conflict,
one that will have to be fought on multiple battlefields. Perhaps the next
American administration will develop a serious strategy to defeat our enemies”.
Did you get that, dear reader? Here is the founder and head
honcho of an outfit dedicated to the defense of democracies wondering if the
next administration will develop a strategy to defeat “our enemies.” It is the
sum total of what he can do to defend a billion people living under democratic
rule.