On March 26, 2008, Yahoo! News carried “Remarks by John McCain to The Los Angeles World Affairs Council.” In the the first paragraph, he describes how, when he was 5 years old, his father was informed that Japan had “bombed Pearl Harbor,” and as a result he rarely saw his father, a military man, for the next four years.
An intelligent or at least a sane assessment of the event should have included conceptions like “the aggression” (of Japan) and “the tyranny” (in Japan), which made possible that insane aggression, ending in Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S. and the following replacement of the tyranny in Japan with a parliamentary democracy.
Instead, McCain explains how much he detests war, which deprived him of the opportunity to see his father regularly for four years. “I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description.” And so on — for 12 lines. “Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war.”
Prior to this speech, McCain declared that the war in Iraq should be won at any cost, even if it takes 100 years. That pronouncement created the impression, unfavorable for him as a presidential candidate, that he was a crazy militarist. So the purpose of his speech of March 26 was to prove that he is not a crazy militarist but, on the contrary, a passionate pacifist, who suffered from war already at the age of 5.
Why then is he for the war in Iraq? Bush attacked Iraq five years ago on the basis of false U.S.-British intelligence-espionage data. Predictably, Sunni launched a guerrilla war, owing to which Bush has been mired in Iraq for five years. Bush crossed out the phrase “guerrilla war” from the English language, and called it “terror.”
Developing Bush’s misnomer, McCain postulates that the U.S. enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida. “If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory, and continue to provoke sectarian [Shi’a-Sunni] tensions . . . Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide . . .” The result? “. . . a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date . . . I hold my position because I hate war.”
Now you see how McCain has been misunderstood. He said he was for the war in Iraq even if it takes 100 years to win it. But he is against war in Iraq and knows how to rout al-Qaida in Iraq, the only possible way to end the war in Iraq.
Now, what about China, a tyranny whose population exceeds that of Iraq today more than 50 times? Says McCain: “China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries.” Pay attention to the word “destined.”
There is no Western intelligence-espionage agencies able to penetrate the dictatorship of China. But McCain can even predict its destiny. Also, according to McCain, China may move to “political liberalization,” and then “our relationship will be based” not only on “periodically shared interests” but also “on the bedrock of shared values.”
In the second paragraph of his speech, McCain declares: “We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world’s most terrible weapons.” Does McCain mean the dictatorship of China with their 1.3 billion slaves? Oh, no!
The dictators of China are destined not to be an adversary of the United States! McCain means al-Qaida with whom he has replaced Sunni in Iraq in his imagination. These monsters require the U.S. war in Iraq until they are totally annihilated.
When McCain was 3 or 4 years old, he could have declared (oh, a child’s innocence!) that Japan would never attack the United States. But Japan did, when he was 5. In 1938, the English were sure that Hitler’s Germany would never go to war with England. But in the next two years Germany invaded Poland, then France, and thus was at war with Britain.]
Stalin, a paranoid and suspicious man, did not believe, even on the night of the German attack, that Germany would attack Russia; but Germany did invade Russia first up to the area of Moscow and then up to the Volga.
In 2008, McCain announced: “China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries”! The announcement is useful for the Chinese dictators’ strategy. When the last American is annihilated by Chinese post-nuclear super weapons, let him still believe in McCain’s announcement.
Barack Obama says little about the U.S. foreign politics under his presidency. When I see him on television I recall the tragic history of “African Americans”:
In Senegal, it was a good deal,
Their teeth are flint, and muscles steel.
I gave for them gin and knives,
There, money is unknown, and I did not give a cent.
Even if half of them in my custody dies,
My profit will be 600 percent.
The venom of Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor, is understandable, though he could be asked why he does not curse with the same fury those Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery for gin and/or knives. A more relevant question is why Obama tolerated for 20 years such a pastor, selectively hating America, but not Senegal.
The only plausible answer is that Obama had intended to be the leader of the “African Americans,” but when there appeared the opportunity to be a presidential candidate, he seized it, and had been doing well until Rev. Wright was disclosed.
But what about Obama’s in foreign politics? As senator, he was against the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because his middle name, “Hussein,” was the same as Saddam’s name, and the invasion would not help the cause of the “African Americans”? Indeed, the invasion soon became a disgrace for all causes except the cause of Iraqi oil for the chosen American few.
Because of the invasion of Iraq, Obama came to dislike President George W. Bush, but he respects his father, President George H.W. Bush. But the fact is that President George H.W. Bush sent his newly appointed U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to Iraq to assure Saddam Hussein, on July 25, 1990, that should he invade Kuwait, the United States would regard it as Iraq’s internal affair. And this is how the Iraqi farce-tragedy began and dragged on for 18 years!
As for Hillary Clinton’s foreign politics, let us recall not only her vote, but also her speech in the Senate — an unqualified approval of the invasion of Iraq.
It was like an essay of a school girl who was given “all the facts” about Saddam Hussein from the reports of the CIA and the British Intelligence Service, neither of which existed then or exists now in any serious sense.
The school girl duly wrote the assigned essay, using “all the facts.” She is no doubt capable of writing such an essay on any subject on the basis of what is being considered as “all the facts” this day, this week, this month, or this year.
When the U.S. troops entered Iraq, they found out that the U.S.–British intelligence-espionage facts were fictions.
So what? If Hillary becomes president, she herself will be able to write her speeches on the basis of inventions provided by the CIA. Her speech-writers could then be dismissed and their salaries donated to charities. As for the U.S. foreign policy, why should it be better after 2008 than between 1990 and 2008?
* * *
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.