If you think that the feeding habits of all parasites are
limited to drawing nourishment from the body of the host, you'll want to revise
your thinking after you've read the article that came under the title: “Bolton's
Illegal War Plan for North
Korea ,” written by Scott D. Sagan and Allen
S. Weiner.” It was published on April 6, 2018 in the New York Times.
On the surface, what Sagan and Weiner are trying to
accomplish is make the readers believe they are only discussing the article
that John Bolton wrote six weeks prior. It is a piece in which he expressed his
legal opinion on the possibility of America
launching a preemptive strike against North Korea to destroy its nuclear
arsenal and the installations that were used to produce them.
The two authors began the discussion and developed it in a
manner that looks ordinary. That is, they said this is what John Bolton wrote,
this is what they thought was wrong with his reasoning; this is why they so
believed, and this was their opinion as well as their counter-argument. To the
majority of readers –– if the medium (in this case the form) were the message
–– the message could not be more benign.
But in reality, Sagan and Weiner had something more profound
in mind. In a gesture that can only be considered an insidious move, they
planted early in the article the fodder that would sustain a hidden message,
and carry it to the end – to the time when the message will have reached its
full flowering. Here is the early formulation of their message; an apparent
repudiation of what John Bolton had written: “We should not wait until the very
last minute,” to attack North
Korea .
The writers proceeded to make a legal case that seemed to
counter the Bolton argument. Next, they did what
looks like giving credit where credit was due. Here it is: “Mr. Bolton did,
however, raise a useful analogy that evokes the need to assess laws in the
context of strategic imperatives: the Israeli air attacks on the nuclear
reactors in Iraq and Syria … both were arguably illegal, since there was no
imminent threat to Israel”.
As you'll see, it is at this point that the contorted logic
they used began to unravel. Given that they admitted Israel 's air strikes were illegal,
their use of the term “assess” was misleading because they actually meant to
say “reassess” the existing laws. That reality was reinforced by the authors'
attempt to have it both ways. This became apparent when they proceeded to give
this explanation: “But we would argue that Israel 's strikes were wise given
the low risk that the attacks would escalate into war.” Now you know why they
phrased their opinion the way they did. Had they said 'reassess the laws,' they
would have had to explain reassess to have the laws say what. Using 'assess'
instead, they were able to advance an insidious message without having to
explain it. But what was the message, anyway?
The message is one that John Bolton thinks about all the
time, but being a lawyer, he did not openly enunciate it on this occasion. That
did not stop the political science professor, Sagan; and the law professor
Weiner from saying it, albeit in a subtle way. What they said in essence is
this: “f**k” the law of man. And they proceeded to preach the law of the
jungle, which says you do what you want if you can be sure you'll get away with
it, and that no immediate nefarious consequences will affect you.
This, in their opinion, is what Israel did, which they claim
was the wise thing to do given that the sky did not fall immediately. Never mind
that these actions, added to what Israel has been doing over the decades,
contributed mightily to the horror show that's unfolding today in the Middle
East and beyond.
In addition, the writers are suggesting that America made a mistake when it did not bomb North Korea
before the latter had developed nuclear weapons. It would have been wise to
bomb then, they suggest, but it would be dangerous to bomb now. In addition,
their logic leads to the conclusion that it would be wise for America to bomb Iran now, thus avoid having another
North Korean situation in the future.
And while we're at it, their message for the long term is
that America should wise up
and bomb every country that will try to build a civilian nuclear station
without first proclaiming its undying love for Israel .
What Sagan and Weiner did, in effect, is poison America's
standing in the world to validate Israel's criminal habit of bombing the
progress that's made by its neighbors when it cannot feed its own population
despite the quarter of a trillion taxpayer dollars it has siphoned off America
over the decades. If you want to know, this has been the venomous feeding habit
of the parasite that is Israel ;
and it has been a killer.
After infesting the debating environment with their demonic
message on how America
should treat Israel 's
potential rivals in the Middle East , the two
authors wore the aureole of angels to proclaim their sainthood. This is how
they did it:
“There are no tolerable military options for confronting North Korea .
Congress should have a voice in rejecting dangerous threats to unleash an
illegal and disastrous preventive war”.