March 31, 2011

Obama's War

Two weeks ago, Barack Obama started America's war with Libya. I can recall my amazement as I typed the title for my blog post: Are we at war with Libya?

As with so much about the President, his big picture reasons for starting Obama's War remain opaque.

Did he do it to flex the muscle of American power in front of a quaking world?

Or, did he do it to tie down the Gulliver of American power by setting the precedent that the terrifying Pentagon is now the errand boy of the United Nations in general and the enlightened Europeans in particular?

Or did he just not know he was sending America to war? Perhaps he has actually believed all the nonsense he has talked about how this isn't a war and, if you don't believe that, well, this isn't America's war?

And thus we come again to the question of who Obama really is: bleeding heart or cold-blooded power-seeker? And what attitude toward American power has Obama inherited (I mean, besides that he should be in charge of American power)?

When George W. Bush decided to finish his father's unfinished business with Saddam Hussein, well, it wasn't very good idea, but at least, from an commonplace understanding of the psychological dynamics of the Bush dynasty, you could see where he was coming from. The younger Bush's view was that his imposing father had wimped out and lost re-election by not taking out Saddam Hussein. 

But on the larger question of the goodness and usefulness of American power, it's clear the two Bonesmen were in agreement (although the elder held a more nuanced view of its limits). The Bushes are from the old hereditary ruling caste, The Good Shepherd good blood, good bone elite.

But, Obama's mother, father, and stepfather were part of such an exotic caste -- the CIA-affiliated international left -- that it's hard for anybody to get a handle on him. And the subjects that fascinate Obama most -- his race and inheritance -- are exactly those that most stultify thinking among almost everybody else.

That a man figured out how to exploit the softheadedness of America's reigning civic religion by making himself "a blank screen" for our fantasies, that he managed to make himself the most powerful man in the world, the man who can start a war on a whim without anybody else having much of an idea what his whims are, remains among the oddest and most under-reported stories of this century.


77 comments:

DaveT said...

Why have you begun (in recent years) patching in these adulatory comments about George H.W. Bush at every opportunity? I used to think it was just a tetchy way of putting down the Iraq war faction--fair enough, even though it leaves you sounding like a Maureen Dowd imitator. Bush and James Baker were Arabists, the simple reason for a military stance you are (nowadays, at least) attributing to some mixture of Taft-style isolationist conservatism and CIA-honed foreign policy wisdom. Sorry, but it's a weak analysis and not able to be retrofitted to 1991. When the Saudi royal family said "jump" Bush Sr. was inclined to ask how high. Kuwait was member in good standing of the club and any threat against it certainly was taken seriously by Riyadh, likewise in 2002 with the unacceptable outcome of a Shiite-dominated Iraq.

Obama on the other hand is much closer (for the moment) to the Buchananite ideal you seem to extoll: in that, he really doesn't give a rat's ass about those funny-looking foreign people, what with their gobbledygook languages and lack of community organizing infrastructure (although it's OK if occasionally they have prizes to shower upon him), and is instead just hoping for an accident to befall old Muammar before too much fundraising time is lost to the chore of stringing along a feckless coalition of French/NATO, or France vs. NATO, or French corporations vs. Italian corporations. From divergent motives there's no one who would accuse him of being shrewd in this way. In the long run I think it's only foolhardy, when the U.S. winds up with few options against a surviving Khadaffi. But since Obama is voting Present for now, give him credit, I cannot imagine you of all people offering alternative advice under the circumstances. If it were closer to Nov. 2012 he would doubtless discover his inner Clinton warrior and indiscriminately level northern Africa. Don't ascribe to assistant-professor one-worldiness what is more easily explained by indifference and solipsism.

Bud said...

These are strange times.

Obama's moral and intellectual ambiguity allows airhead lefties like Rabbi Lerner to think Obama's "a fundamentally decent person!" -- http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/violence-in-libya -- and tell themselves that Obama's Libya war is somehow different from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

At the same time, Bill Kristol is high-fiving his fellow Israel-firsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIKxLr_AWj8

Mencius Moldbug said...

Steve, no offense, I love ya, but you're a moron.

You seem to actually, sincerely believe that the POTUS is actually personally in charge of the executive branch - as if he were, say, The Donald, or Louis XIV, or something. No offense, but in 2011, this is not far short of believing that the Queen of England rules England.

Who is B.H. Obama? A nothing, a nobody, a figurehead, an empty suit without character or meaning. Did he make the decision to bomb Libya? He sure did. Or at least, someone in his office did.

Picture the White House as a magic 8-ball. If you shake the 8-ball, it shows one of three decisions: "Cynical and Realistic," "Cautious but Hopeful," or "Bold and Idealistic." The rest of the executive branch relies on this 8-ball to make its "decisions." To settle a conflict between any two organs and/or factions within USG, three options are formulated, matching the 8-ball's built-in answers. This goes into the White House and the "decision" is delivered.

Why did USG bomb Libya? Because the 8-ball said "Bold and Idealistic." Why did it come up this way? Who knows - perhaps something David Axelrod ate for breakfast. Perhaps some childhood sexual experience with Frank Marshall Davis. Who cares? A magic 8-ball is a nonentity by definition.

The relevant question is why the policy options (generated by the State Department) were what they were. In this case I think there were only two: "betray the Libyan revolution" or "descend into the Libyan quagmire." "Cautious, but Hopeful" simply did not exist in this case.

Why play along with the farce? You should read Foseti for a while and find out what our government actually is. Now that the NYT is paywalled, there's really no excuse...

Anonymous said...

Well Steve, in my humble opinion the principle author of this war is Britain's William Hague - a nasty little man with a deformed head, but with a big chip on his shoulder and a strong sense of needing to 'prove' himself (he was ejected as Tory Party leader after losing an election).Unfortunately, the modern breed of British politician feels the need to 'do a Maggie' every now and then to 'prove' themselves - the idea being that a swift little victory against 'the wogs' - against initially poor odds makes you as a man and politician and guaurntees electoral victory and political kudos.Tony Blair was another big exponent of this type of 'thinking' - he used British armour liberally in such places as Kossovo (his priggish 'moralism' on hi side), but got badly unstuck by hubris in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is curious to not that pre Thatcher and post anthony Eden British Prime Ministers could be relied upon to wimp out from the merest whiff of armed conlict - that is where Galtieri misjudged badly, he was not dealing with Ted Heath.
Anyhow Hague got David Cameron interested in his chest beating, penis waving act, little Sarko didn't want to be left out of the glory, a UN stitch-up was concocted (Russia nad China not prepared to sacrifice good will over little Gaddafi)- and crucially the Hilary Clinton lead coven in the state department screaming 'Rwanda!' (a protected minority was in the event not protected by the bully boys of the US equalities industry) managed to convince Obama to go along with Hague's dastardly plot.
The rest, is, as they say history.

In the event it was probably the coven - and the power of the feminist/black alliance that runs the Democrats (and America), that was the decisive factor, in American terms at least.

Big bill said...

I really don't think Obama made himself a blank screen as part of some master plan.

His blank screen is just his way of relating to the world.

They were probably mirroring techniques taught by the Back of the Yards guys in Chicago when they were prepping him for Community Activism.

HLS students who dealt with him on the Law Review talked about him as being "understanding" and "hearing them out"--particularly in one-on-one encounters.

His ability to reflect what they said back to them enabled them to project whatever they wanted on him.

His success is really due to the agenda of the Chicago folks, including Bill Ayers, Dohrn, and Lester Crown.

It really doesn't make much different whether they saw in his masterful "reflecting" ability a True Believer, or a chump who could be manipulated and trusted to go along with the political packaging necessary for any candidate.

In either case it is the packagers who are responsible for the direction and speed of Obama's meteoric ascent.

His talent is fundamentally non-directive, however. It doesn't lead, it follows. His Chicago activist mentors taught him how to listen to the 'hood, but (as he admits in his book) he couldn't lead.

So how do things work in the White House? I expect his packagers find the viewpoint they believe most Americans will support and they present it to him.

He has the remarkable knack of adopting it so seamlessly and effortlessly that you would think he has held that belief since birth.

When there is confusion or disagreement in his leadership ranks (pace Libya)is when things break down; he starts changing views from speech to speech like a meth-crazed chameleon in a kaleidoscope changes colors.

Syncretism said...

I suggest Obama's post-presidential memoir be called, "The Opacity of Hope".

Anonymous said...

You give him too much credit. BHO is an errand boy. Nothing more. There is something else going on. Libya is a diversion.

Anonymous said...

"Or, did he do it to tie down the Gulliver of American power by setting the precedent that the terrifying Pentagon is now the errand boy of the United Nations in general and the enlightened Europeans in particular?"

This.

Dahinda said...

"That a man figured out how to exploit the softheadedness of America's reigning civic religion by making himself "a blank screen" for our fantasies, that he managed to make himself the most powerful man in the world, the man who can start a war on a whim without anybody else having much of an idea what his whims are, remains among the oddest and most under-reported stories of this century."

This is the quote of all quotes for summing up the whole Obama era!

Black Death said...

"The younger Bush's view was that his imposing father had wimped out and lost re-election by not taking out Saddam Hussein."

....

I don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Does Bush II really think that the 1992 recession and the violation of the "Read my lips - no new taxes" pledge played no part in his old man's failed reelection bid? Could be....

Both Bushes sold out their base, and, both times, the base rebounded, with strong Republican victories in 1994 and 2010. Obama has sold out his base too. I wonder how that will play in 2012?

dores said...

"That a man figured out how to exploit the softheadedness of America's reigning civic religion by making himself "a blank screen" for our fantasies, that he managed to make himself the most powerful man in the world, the man who can start a war on a whim without anybody else having much of an idea what his whims are, remains among the oddest and most under-reported stories of this century."


The most underreported aspect of this story within a story is that he obviously didn't "make himself." Other people, mostly white people, "made" him what he is. Only by massive cover-up and protection by a MSM owned by about 6 said white-people, not to mention deep collusion by those representing "government," such as Pelosi and the DNC, could this person have been risen from powerless nothingness to powerful nothingness.
They (well, let's get specific, Bill Ayres) even wrote his book about being black and having a black dad.

So you could say he's a blank canvas, since we have so little info we are allowed to read in MSM, but empty suit seems more accurate.

Paul Mendez said...

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

- Napoleon Bonaparte (or somebody else)

William B Swift said...

There is a third alternative for what Obama "really is" that you left out. He is just so totally incompetent that he makes even Bush look good.

Skip G. said...

I have to severely budget gasoline, energy bills and groceries while this odd man wastes national treasure involving us in a new war for dubious reasons.

Rick Darby said...

Obama's motivation(s) for intervening in Libya are enigmatic, as the move seems out of character for him. Two possibilities:

1. Some adviser or string puller mentioned a focus group that perceived him as a spineless blowhard in foreign policy. Given the fortuitous chance to flex military muscle with the blessing of the UN and the Arab League, he saw a chance to change the image.

2. Some adviser or string puller convinced him that he could woo neo-cons, without having to take the distasteful step of supporting Israel, by a low-casualty (for American forces) campaign to support "human rights" and protect "innocent" Muslims.

Sgt James Crowley said...

I don't think Obama sweats the details like foreign policy, economics or war outside the speeches he delivers. He's probably being honest when he beg off his responsibility for this war - it's in the hands of his handlers and advisers.

On the other hand, I have no doubt he is personally invested in things like Louis Henry Gates, Jr III run-in with the Cambridge police and pushing racial spoils via every route available including the Dept of Ed, DOJ and regulatory agencies.

Oh, he also appears a devote follower of NCAA basketball with his uncannily accurate March Madness picks.

Chicago said...

The Bushes may have been part of this "good blood" ruling family group but Bush Jr and his siblings really graphically illustrate the regression towards the mean principle. Their kids all seem to have degenerated into dysfunctional, useless get-high average types. It's an example how all this supposed good breeding falls apart in reality; they simply become dumb and decadent. Bush Sr now has some Mexican grandchildren; so much for the blue bloods.
Obama seems to be an artificial creation, a pre-packaged politician ready to go, complete with an autobiography written at at point in his life when there wouldn't seem to have been a need for one. Perhaps he was being groomed to be a black political leader in order to channel the black population along the desired pathways, but then it was discovered he had cross-over appeal and so was tapped for higher office. He's a canny chameleon but like most actors shouldn't be confused with the role he plays in front of the cameras.

Half Sigma said...

We should take Obama at face value. He believes in preventing genocides and massacres, and he is too blinded by his liberal idealogy to see the obvious downsides of bombing Gadaffi's forces. Liberals like to do stuff which makes them feel morally superior in the present.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that there is something sexual going on between Obama and Qadaffi.

Being iStevers, we all know about Qadaffi and his corps of Amazonian bodyguards, so it's pretty clear that Qadaffi is something like an Arab Slick Willy on steroids.

And we also know that Obama is at least bisexual*, and probably predominantly homosexual [with Michelle serving dutifully as his beard all these years] - certainly if you have read the Chicago Law School Exams [as I have], then you are well aware that Obama is absolutely obsessed with questions involving homosexuality.

And we know that his Administration is riddled with homosexuals - in all honesty, I don't know of anyone serving in his administration [with the possible exception of the Bush holdover, Robert Gates] who isn't obviously homosexual.

Anyway, something tells me that there is a really weird, visceral, pathological sexual dissonance between the Obama & Qadaffi, and that it would easily be strong enough to motivate Obama to seek to destroy Qadaffi [and it would certainly account for the almost seething anger that Obama seemed to be suppressing during Monday's speech].



*PS: For folks new to iSteve - who are curious about Obama's history of homosexuality - you can read about his probable affairs involving the love triangle with Frank Marshall Davis and Stanley Armour Dunham, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo [pictures], Bill Ayers, Donald Young, Rahm Emanuel, and currently Reggie Love.

BTW, I have long thought that the reason Obama authorized the Predator Drone attacks on Pakistan was to punish the fundamentalist elements within the Pakistani ISI so as to make Pakistan safe again for its traditional ruling elite of Arab homosexuals, like Obama's own "friend", Chandoo, or like Hillary's personal "friend", Huma Abedin.

Anyway, given that someone in Team Obama certainly ordered the murder of Donald Young [and that John Brennan's people were certainly responsible for the murder of Lt Quarles Harris Jr], I think that Obama and his use of violence is about as ripe for a Freudian analysis as has been any major political figure in my lifetime.

J said...

Maybe it's simple miscalculation, one of the CIA's many. They may have estimated that crazy clown of Ghaddafi was already as good as gone and wanted to be on the side of the winner.

Anonymous said...

For whatever complicated combination of reasons, Libya became an international "thing."

Obama ASSUMED (as did a lot of people) that the writing was on the wall, and opened his big fact mouth, and in the process, put himself in a position that would become extremely awkward should Kaddafi do something crazy like ... not go away.

Peter A said...

And the subjects that fascinate Obama most -- his race and inheritance -- are exactly those that most stultify thinking among almost everybody else.

This where you get lost, Steve. You're trying to make the man far more exotic than he is. You take his book, written to boost his political career, far too seriously. When he was at Punahou Obama was not a raceman, and not much of a leftist - people who knew him in school describe him as a clever slacker who smoked a lot of weed. That's what he still is, deep down. He wants to play golf and enjoy the privileges of his office, and he seems to have little scruple about using people and discarding them when they don't serve his purpose (Reverend Wright, black people in general).

Anonymous said...

Rendez-vous in15, oops, I mean18 years.

dearieme said...

Does the fact that he went to war so swiftly at the beck and call of Cameron and Sarkozy suggest that they are among the few people who know the secret of the International Man of Mystery's birth certificate?

jtg said...

Steve - Some (like) Beck are arguing that Obama went to war with Libya to establish the Responsibility to Protect as a governing principle. This has been long pushed by his advisor Samantha Power and other members of the international Left.

The idea is that RtoP would compel the world to intervene in places like Rwanda, Darfur, Libya, etc.

Some claim that the international Left is so gung-ho about this idea because they plan to eventually use this in Israel to impose a Palestinian state with a large occupation force. Accuse Israel of human rights violations and then use the RtoP to protect the Palestinian "victims".

Anonymous said...

Well, I think his options were limited. I mean, he tried to do the watch and wait thing, but everyone was (ironically) howling for American involvement. Firing a few hundred cruise missiles in the general direction of Western Libya makes you look like you're doing something, rather than sitting still, paralyzed by indecision.

I also think it was partly done to deny the French a single-handed military victory. I suspect that's why the British are also involved.

The plain truth is that there are no good outcomes here. No one in DC or Tripoli asked for this (Big Oil would prefer a stable if slightly hostile Libya to a free-for-all). I suspect the American firepower display was mostly for show. Obama won't be committing anything more than Tomahawks and JDAMS along with their respective launch platforms plus a few AWACS to make sure it doesn't get out of control.

What a mess.

Let this be a lesson to all third-world strongmen, start your nuclear programs and do it soon. Once you get the weapons, you get left alone. See North Korea. Hell, like the Norks you can even shell your neighboring countries and no one will do a damn thing about it (other than write strongly worded resolutions, but not the kind that authorize military action).

Anonymous said...

This is also the first war started exclusively by feminists. Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, three women who apparently hate each other but hate men even more.

So now women will hopefully stop with the 'if people with vaginas ran the world there wouldn't be war' arguments.

Anonymous said...

Donald Trump is on TV saying the reason that Obama won't show his birth certificate is because it lists his religion as Muslim. Last week I speculated that the original certificate listed his race as White. It could be both.

If I was right and he was classified as White as a light skinned baby from a White mother, that would be a major political embarrassment for him but it wouldn't actually reveal anything new. He is a White man in a Black man's skin. Many of the professional Blacks like Jackson and Sharpton always viewed him as culturally and genetically White. He was only viewed as a legitimate Black for much of his career by the extremely light Jeremiah Wright.

So if his birth certificate actually classified him as White he would be in some trouble with his Black constituency. But for the country this would be a tempest in a tea pot - damaging to a single man's political career but not of general importance.

However if Trump is correct and it indicates his religion as Muslim then the consequences are dire. We know young Barrack went to public school in Indonesia as a Muslim. But the mature Obama denies ever having been a Mohammedan. This raises the prospect of taqiyya.

Christians went challenged are expected to affirm their faith. Historically this led to martyrs. The Christian would announce his faith and be killed for it.

Muslims when challenged are expected to lie. It is an article of faith that they lie to infidels.

Christians are required to be public in their religious allegiances. Muslims are required to conceal and deceive.

Therefore it may be wise to consider that anyone who has once been a Muslim to be less than completely trustworthy thereafter. This is not paranoid, It is rational.

Obama doesn't have to be some Manchurian Candidate super spy who has a nefarious secret scheme to topple the US. He was more likely just a half Black kid taught Islam early who soon recognized the advantages of pretending to be a Christian. At Islamic school they taught him that it was good to lie to Christians. He tried it and it worked for him.

If any of this true it's very likely that the military knows and has made contingency plans. Omar Bradley never let Harry Truman in on the Venona Secret because he considered him a security risk. My guess is that the Joint Chiefs will go along with the Obama pose for the sake of domestic tranquility but have imposed hard limits on his nuclear prerogatives.

Albertosaurus

Albertosaurus

Thrasymachus said...

I can't diminish Obama's skill in manipulating the culture, but he's just a figurehead. He represents the force that controls us, which is this very culture that we were sold, and which we bought without too much arm-twisting. Holding onto the assumptions of this culture is what makes us decent and acceptable human beings. If we can't drop those, things will never change.

Thripshaw said...

The Bushes were the real traitors, though. No trace of noblesse oblige or concern with the American nation from either of those corrupt globalists. Just climb the greasy pole and grab as much cash for your own folks while selling out your country to the quickest bidder.

At least we know why Obama hates us… he is not one of us. His father was an African black nationalist / racial socialist, while his mother was a left wing loony who despised whites.

Why America trashing traitors consistently rise to the top positions of leadership is a mystery indeed.

Kylie said...

"That a man figured out how to exploit the softheadedness of America's reigning civic religion by making himself "a blank screen" for our fantasies, that he managed to make himself the most powerful man in the world, the man who can start a war on a whim without anybody else having much of an idea what his whims are, remains among the oddest and most under-reported stories of this century."

That's one way of putting it.

"Slow motion train wreck in a continuous loop" is another.

Matt said...

The differences between Obama's way of thinking and Bush's make for interesting mental fodder, but that might be the extent of it.

Modern America is no longer ruled by political personalities so much as it is entertained by them while hives of bureaucrats, each interested in turf and advancement, do the real work of ruling.

If that's the paradigm, then the US went to war in Libya because there is a Defense Department that wants to stave off cuts and a State Department that wants to "stay relevant."

The only questions that concern Obama are: why against Libya, why in the third year of his term, why with a UN mandate, and why without bringing in Congress?

Those are less interesting questions, though, since the answer is at hand. Obama is acting like a department head at a prestigious university. He's asserting himself and making it appear that he has a great deal of power, while at the same time not exposing himself to the risks that would accompany real power.

Anonymous said...

"But, Obama's mother, father, and stepfather were part of such an exotic caste -- the CIA-affiliated international left -- that it's hard for anybody to get a handle on him."

Radicalism runs in the blood. It is both genetic and cultural, and Obama is influenced by both. Our country is governed by a man who hates America, especially its historic majority.

Matthew said...

I've come to a slightly different conclusion, though I too admit my thoughts are speculation.

Traditionally, the Democrats have been composed of several large constituency blocs: nonwhites, white ethnics and labor union members, and lifestyle liberals.

The white ethnics and labor union members have largely deserted the Democrats. The nonwhites are largely a captive audience. This leaves the lifestyle liberals, who have been thoroughly alienated by Obama. This isn't the first time Obama has alienated this bunch.

Since Obama appears poised to run again, the question becomes why Obama has gone out of his way to alienate white liberal voters who will probably vote for the Greens in the next election. If he has some ulterior motive, I just don't see it.

Anonymous said...

Did he do it to flex the muscle of American power in front of a quaking world?
=============================

Considering that Truman dropped two atom bombs on Japan to flex his nation's muscles against the Soviets, this not implauisble.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I just figured out Gaddafi's endgame:

Free boat ticket for all rebels to France and Italy. Inside their super-luxurious offices, Sarko and Berlusconi are shitting bricks.

Have you seen the pictures of Lampedusa? And that's what happened when the rebels won.

Anonymous said...

This is a wrong approach toward understanding what is happening. Psycho-politics matters less in a nation like the US where the president has very little power. Psycho-politics, otoh, could be crucial in understanding the likes of Gaddafi, Castro, Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, Kim, or even Putin, who wield considerable power.
When I say the American president has little power, I don't mean the presidency itself wields little power. But the Imperial Presidency is not the same thing as the Imperial President. The power is in the Office, not in the man. The man put inside the Office owes everything to the people who put him there. Who are those people in the US? The two main groups for both parties are the Wasp elites and especially more than ever, the Jewish elites. So, what we really have, in terms of real power, is the Imperial Oligarchy that puts a man in the Presidency to do its bidding. And that is what Obama is doing, and that is what Bush did.
The elite control(especially by Jews)is manifold: financial, intellectual, media, even sexual vis marriage, etc.
Samantha Powers is not Jewish but is married to Cass the Nudge Sunstein. So, the likes of her and Hlllary have been financially, intellectually, psychologically, and spiritually(Holocaustianity) nudged by Jews. Aunt Sam's "end genocide" liberal ideology is an outgrowth of the Holocaustian 'Never Again'. She is a nudged dupe for the Democrats, no less than Condie Rice was for the Neocons.

The psycho-biography of Obama may be interesting, even compelling, but it's not what drives our foreign policy. He is an instrument of Jewish power. Whenever he or his goy advisers do anything, the thing that's always on the back of their minds is 'Is it okay with the Jews? Will it please the Jews? Will it increase or dwindle the crucial Jewish support?' It's like whenever a dog does something, it wonders 'how will the master feel about it?'

Jewish power is so persuasive that even when Jews are not directly involved in decision-making, the gentiles in power try to see things from the Jewish-centric view. It's like a high school president must think, 'what will the school principal, who has the real power, think?' or like a goy Hollywood actor always has to remind himself, 'Jews own Hollywood and if I displease them, I'm finished, but if I please them, I get better roles.'

Since Obama, Powers, Clinton, and Rice at the forefront of the Libyan War, if things go badly, the Jews can blame it all on over-zealous goyim, as David Rieff in TNR has already done. But, that is like blaming the running dogs and not the master that feeds them.

Similarly, there was much talk of Bush's 'tragic' psychology and father-fixation and Freudian mumbo jumbo--Jews are masters of psychology and psycho-politics--, but it was just a red herring to take our minds away from the REAL reason why we stumbled into Iraq: Jewish power.

Now, I don't deny that Bush held those feelings. Invading Iraq was for him a way to kill two birds with one stone: to both be a good son and an independent man. In his younger days, he brought his father much grief and never lived up to the old man's expectations. So later, he tried very hard to make something of himself. He became governor and then president. But in the back of his mind, he always felt, 'I got this far only because I'm the son of Bush I. To become my own man, I gotta do something bold.'
Invading Iraq was both being a good son--avenging his father--and breaking free from his father. And Neocon Jews played on this psychology in a nudgy wudgy way. Jews are the masters of psychological manipulation, and it goes back to Frued and even before(as hagglers). It's like in ANALYZE THIS or the PRESIDENT'S ANALYST, though Coburn wasn't supposed to be Jewish, he was working in a very Jewish profession.

Anonymous said...

And what do SCHINDLER'S LIST and MIDNIGHT RUN have in common? In both, the endangered Jew uses pscyhological power to gain control over the goy with the gun. Grodin's character may not be 'officially' Jewish, but he is very Jewishy. Like Gandhowitz in SCHINDLER, he gently and skillfully works on the mind of the goy character. He says, "Gee, I sure like you... You're getting to know me better, when am I gonna get to know you better?" He starts out slowly but gradually moves in for the psychological 'moral kill', making Jack Walsch feel guilty over what he's doing. Now, Gandhowitz and Mardukowitz were perfectly right to do what they did to save their own skin, but Jewish elites in America are not exactly facing doom in the gas chambers. They hold the reins of power, so their psychological manipulations of goyim is to make the goyim do stuff for the interests of global Jewish power. Even though Bush may have disliked Hussein, something tells me he was NOT thinking of revenge 24/7 until the Neocons psychologically played games with him. But when the war went badly, some Neocon Jew wrote a book blaming the whole sad affair on Bush's papa-complex.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Brinkley-t.html

In fact, if Bush's Neocon handlers had advised him against the war, he would NOT have gone into war. Sure, the president has the power of final decision, but he only knows as much as his advisers tell him. Also, he knows who got him into power. Those who giveth can taketh away.
GOP wasps knew that their power was slipping. They knew Jews were the new power elite. And so, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were desperate to forge a wasp-Jewish alliance by doing something good for the Jews. And indeed for awhile, even NY Times and most of Jewish-controlled MSM was for it, not because they were duped by Bush but because they hoped to USE Bush. Not because they really believed in WMD but they were glad to see Hussein, the potential threat to Israel, gone for good, thereby sendig a message to other Arabs: don't mess with US and Israel.

So, this is less Obama's War than Obama's Schwar--war in the interest of the Schwarzes of the world.
Many Jews, being clever, will voice opposition to the war to make it seem it's the doing of goyim, but Jewish power is really behind what Obama/Hillary/Powers/Rice are doing. Each of them have tons of Jewish advisers, funders, and 'aids'. Though called 'aids', it's really more like Obama, Hillary, Powers, and Rice are aids to them. Obama and fellow goyim went to elite colleges where the professors were Jewish or influenced by Jewish thought. And they get their ideas and policy advice from think tanks, most of which are dominated by Jews, from left to right. Even most 'conservative' journals are owned and directed by Jews. Notice how Mark Levin, Bill Kristol, and Obama are all on the same page now.

And even Rand Paul is chickenshit when it comes to Jewish power. His rebuttal to Obama mentioned NOTHING about the crucial power of Zionism. Instead, he played on the easier 'muzzie wuzzie' and 'yellow peril' card: we are borrowing from China to fight this war, and this war isn't worth fighting because, well, them 'Muzzies' are just too barbaric, without clear demarcations of good vs evil, i.e. even the 'good muzzies' could be a bunch of Al Qaeda. What a lamo, but then you have to be a lamo because playing fetch to Jewish power has become what US politics is all about.

Of course, Obama is more savvy about what is really happening. He knows Jews can do to him what they did to Bush: Use the goy, and if things go badly, blame it on the goy--charge the goy on some BS psychological rap. So, he's playing it jazzy.

Anonymous said...

"Why America trashing traitors consistently rise to the top positions of leadership is a mystery indeed."


Just desserts?

Anonymous said...

@Anti-Gnostic

Re: that picture on your blog.

Frankly, I can't tell much difference between the North Africans and the Italian police trying to hold them back. They seem to be the same genetic stock. No great surprise there.

This is why Northern Euros need to separate from Meds if we're to survive.

Geoff Matthews said...

I think that you are simplifying W's war with Iraq. The coalition (US, UK, anyone else?) still had troops stationed in the middle-east because of Saddam. There was a cease-fire agreement that Saddam had not lived up to. Iraq continued to fire on coalition planes that enforced the no-fly zone.
Basically, the war that started during HW's term hadn't finished and the status-quo wasn't tenable.

Anonymous said...

If any of this true it's very likely that the military knows and has made contingency plans. Omar Bradley never let Harry Truman in on the Venona Secret because he considered him a security risk. My guess is that the Joint Chiefs will go along with the Obama pose for the sake of domestic tranquility but have imposed hard limits on his nuclear prerogatives.


When Whiskey's not around, you can count on Albertosaurus to be the dumbest commenter in the thread.

Robert said...

The Manchurian President Update:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=183337

Who is Obama and why does he lie?

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/fac-filed-in-lawsuit-about-obamas-bogus.html

Anonymous said...

Peter A:
When he was at Punahou Obama was not a raceman, and not much of a leftist - people who knew him in school describe him as a clever slacker who smoked a lot of weed. That's what he still is, deep down. He wants to play golf and enjoy the privileges of his office, and he seems to have little scruple about using people and discarding them when they don't serve his purpose (Reverend Wright, black people in general).

I'll say it a million times: Obama is the black Nixon. He's a power-hungry opportunist who wants the good life and little else.

David said...

There is no there there, as some woman writer said.

Obama is the space between the Powers who are using him. Like an iron filling that floats between two magnets, he seems important but is nothing in himself.

The powers behind him are the operant matter.

No amount of analysis will ever profoundize the hole in the doughnut.

Anonymous said...

Vatican says that 40 innocents killed

Oops. Fail!

Anonymous said...

Rand Paul weighs in impressively on the constitutional issue underlying Barry's war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY19PnY2m8&feature=player_embedded

ricpic said...

Pure miscalculation on Zero's part. He thought he could piggy back on the "rebels" victory over Gaddafi and claim the credit without the effort, or with minimal involvement, but fatally dithered while the tide turned against the rebels, and put the American toe in the water two weeks too late. Now he MUST get Gaddafi or face certain defeat in 2012. Which means there will be American boots on the ground. By hook or by crook.

eh said...

Hope, change. I believe in hope and change. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And I can't wait for 2012 so I can vote for 'More of the Same'.

Which war were you talking about again? There's been so many recently...

Anonymous said...

He's from the oil wealth resenting old time Dem party left & from the UN loving Unitarian / Stevenson Demo left.

The CIA has nothing to do with it, Glenn Beck.

Whiskey said...

Reading Bush's Decision Points (definitely not ghostwritten much, and it shows, not professionally written), the decision with Saddam was post-9/11. Bush argues that 9/11 changed his mind about wars and pre-emption. He was basically obsessed with stopping another attack. Bush 1 and his people all opposed removing Saddam.

Bush 1, Clinton, and now Obama are pursuing a failed policy.

Whiskey said...

The policy they are pursuing is "bloodless air power." No ground combat or losses. Relying on a compliant media to not show lots of dead foreigners. Using US military power "cheap and easy" the primary objective being ... retaining US domestic support among the Left and Media (the same) which abhor US combat and deaths.

The principal challenge for the US since FDR's policy in 1943, expanded by the Carter Doctrine, is making sure the ME oil flows out at a price we can afford. For decades we used proxies but they turned on us (Iran, likely now Egypt) or became weak (the Saudis) and other regional actors (Iran, AQ, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah) offer an Islamist challenge.

The failure of Obama is Bush 1's, Clinton's, even Bush 2's, which is to present America with a choice: high oil prices and widespread poverty, racial strife, and so on that go with those prices, or US ground casualties as the US shapes the ME to keep the oil flowing cheaply.

You can't get something for nothing, and no President has been willing to argue this, choose or have it chosen for you.

Libya is choosing higher oil prices (air power has already failed) with money, blood, and failure all along with it.

Whiskey said...

Truman did not drop the bomb to "flex his muscles" (the statement is profoundly stupid). He did it because in a Democracy, having about 1.5 million US war dead in an invasion would get him impeached, and rightly so, if there were an alternative. In Okinawa, the US lost about 22,000, about 100 ships sunk, several aircraft carriers ruined, and about 600 planes and airmen dead. Japan was bigger, even more dug in, WWI-style, and would have produced tremendous casualties. That was the whole Japanese strategy after Midway and Guadalcanal.

Obama went into war half-assed, because he did not really care about it. Power, Rice, and Hillary all made him fear his "legacy" ala Rwanda for not stopping a massacre. That's basically his reason for agreeing to it -- not to look bad in front of the Nobel Committee, Davos crowd, etc. Those are "his people."

Farrakhan has a bigger mansion than Oprah, more goons, and probably more money through the NOI, than Harpo Enterprises. Obama's given reason was phony, probably realized he could not compete with "Minister Farrakhan" as he puts it.

Whiskey said...

Let me add, Obama did not rush to war. Instead he dithered and avoided a decision when Khadaffi was on the ropes, losing even parts of Tripoli, and US air power could have been decisive, allowing the US to prop up a tribal leader or ex-general and extract favorable terms: US oil companies and workers get special, favorable treatment. An old style Liberal like FDR or Truman or JFK would have done that in a heart-beat.

Instead Obama dithered, and got pulled into this out of fear of looking bad "in front of the international community" which he as the first post-National President cares most about.

And that's Obama's identity. He IS a Davos Man. A man who cares most about polite, elite, pan-Western opinion. He could care less about the bitter clingers, or probably the Muslim masses. [I doubt many would care if Obama was listed as Muslim on his Birth Certificate, his pan/post-national identity is precisely why he got so many White votes, to make Muslims love us. Being "White" on the certificate would however make him phony. And lose all his SWPL support.]

Anonymous said...

Instead of Obama's psychology, how about Jewish psychology? William Kristol is giddy with joy with the Libyan War. So was Jonah Golderg.
I think there's a book called TOUGH JEWS, about Jewish gangsters. Though about hoods, it's supposed to be admiring of Jewish muscle.

Mostly, Jews have been associated with brains, and brains can lead to lots of wealth and power. But brains aint manly. It doesn't fill one with manly pride, and sometimes, brains can lose out to brawn.
In CARLITO'S WAY, Sean Penn plays Kleinfeld, a brilliant Jewish lawyer. He's so smart he thinks he can outmaneuver everyone until he cross a boundary where he goes from 'lawyer' to 'gangster'. The problem is he isn't tough enough to play the gangster's game.
But it eats away at him that he's pushed around by real gangsters. He has a huge chip on his shoulder. Money and influence attained through brains aren't enough for him; he wants respect and to be feared like the other gangsters. He wants to be a tough guy.

It could well be that many Jews have this complex. Sure, they made a lot of money and have lots of influence, but they still feel like nerdy geeks. For them to really feel like men, they gotta use American muscle--controlled by their kind--to kick butt once in awhile and show the world that Jews are as badass as the rest of them. Even so, they still prefer to play the game in the shadows, just like Kleinfeld.

In a way, Carlito was like Bush or even Obama. Both Bush and Obama were, at one time, washed out. Bush was a fratboy and Obama spent his youth using too much drugs; he could have flunked out and been just another punk. But they were 'saved' by Jews(Neocons or Jewish Liberals), and they came to feel that they owe something to the Jews. But just as Kleinfeld was playing it both ways, stabbing Carlito in the back, the Neocons and Liberal Jews could play Brutus also.

If Gaddafi survives, will he be the Benny Blanco from the Bronx in this equation?

Anonymous said...

"Truman did not drop the bomb to "flex his muscles" (the statement is profoundly stupid). He did it because in a Democracy, having about 1.5 million US war dead in an invasion would get him impeached, and rightly so, if there were an alternative."

He could have gone for a conditional surrender or cease-fire. In retrospect, it's obvious US should have paid more attention to China than to Japan. Even without a surrender, Japan was (1) finished as a great power and (2) more than sufficiently punished for its aggression--Pearl Harbor killed 2,300, Americans killed around 2 million.

Japan's navy was gone, its air power finished, its industries bombed out. Worse, Japan was isolated, without friends in the West, Asia, etc. With its military power destroyed and shut off from world markets, Japan could not rise again.

US should have realized that the BIG PRIZE was China. But FDR, that fool, invited Soviets into the Asian sphere. US should have gone for a conditional surrender or cease-fire with Japan, told the Soviets to stay out of Asia(Stalin was initially reluctant to fight the Japanese in China since USSR lost so many men fighting the Germans), and sent the bulk of US troops into China to finish off the exhausted Japanese, support KMT against the communists, etc. Then China might not fallen under communism. No Korean War, no Vietnam War(since commie China was its main supplier). Also, China's economic rise would have been more gradual, causing less strain to world markets as it's doing today. Also, China would have been a US ally. After decades of Cold War, US and China still see eachother as rivals than allies.

Anonymous said...

Libya is a great distraction from tthis

http://tinyurl.com/48gwsme

none of the above said...

Quote Skip G:I have to severely budget gasoline, energy bills and groceries while this odd man wastes national treasure involving us in a new war for dubious reasons.

I'm pretty sure the last president for which this statement wasn't true was Jimmy Carter. Since then, presidents have invaded, bombed, sent military advisors into, mined the harbors of, and otherwise f--ked around with random third world countries for various reasons. Very seldom do those actions make a hell of a lot of sense. But, at least we get sent the bill for it, including for any blowback, quagmire, or creation of future enemies who must in turn be defeated.)

travis said...

He represents the force that controls us, which is this very culture that we were sold, and which we bought without too much arm-twisting.

What do you mean by stating that our culture was sold to us? When? How? By whom? Are you suggesting that, despite being on the winning side of every war we have ever fought, we are controlled by some mysterious force and bear no responsibility for the world as it is? How many wars have to be fought before everything is exactly as we want it?

That sounds vague and non-sensical to me. Why not, instead, point to a definitive point in American history? At least we would have a point of discussion.

I see Obama's War as yet another example of what Robert Penn Warren called The Legacy of the Civil War: "The Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue, feels redeemed by history . . . . He has in his pocket, not a Papal indulgence peddled by some wandering pardoner of the Middle Ages, but an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future . . ."

Warren wrote those words in 1961. He would prove prophetic when, as soon as Obama faced his first political crisis over the crazy rantings of Jeremiah Wright, Obama dipped into his "Treasury of Virtue" to gave us a lecture on race in American history.

So "Moral naricissim" is Obama's and Bush's "psychological heritage", and that moral certitude is very conducive to political success. Personally, I find both men's Yankee inheritance fascinating. More so than them, apparently, since neither man (openly) identifies with it. Again, fascinating.

Keep it coming, Steve.

none of the above said...

jtg:

How is the responsibility to protect doctrine different from what we were sold with "Kuwaiti babies dumped out of incubators" (first gulf war), "plastic shredders and rape rooms" (second gulf war), and various atrocity stories involving Taliban mistreatment of women? All those were used as reasons to intervene and keep intervening, and indeed I recall being told I was heartless for not caring who ran things in either country, so long as they understood that any connection with attacks on us would cause lots of unpleasantly spectacular explosions intheir capital city, cause bulletholes to sprout mysteriously in the foreheads of their high government officials, etc.

Why, I even think I heard Bush supporters tell me that our invasions and bombings were to support democratization on the Muslim world.

It's almost as though the PR people just recycled the same arguments again and again when their employers decided to go to war for whatever incomprehensible reason.

none of the above said...

Whiskey:

Wouldn't this argument be more plausible if out middle east interventions generally led to lower oil prices?

Anonymous said...

Boy was that Francis Fukuyama dude ever wrong!
Gilbert Pinfold

ben tillman said...

Obama on the other hand is much closer (for the moment) to the Buchananite ideal you seem to extoll: in that, he really doesn't give a rat's ass about those funny-looking foreign people....

Obama is one of those funny-looking foreign people.

Hail said...

Steve Sailer wrote:
"[The rise of B.H. Obama] remains among the oddest and most under-reported stories of this century."

As Steve has pointed out, or at least insinuated, Tom Wolfe predicted the rise of Obama 40 years ago.

Wolfe wrote about the bizarre status-competition game that emerged in the mid to late 1960s, among U.S. whites, which still goes on today. It boils down to: Who can do more to show how far Above Race they are? (which takes the form of promoting every Nonwhite cause, "Radical Chic").

Anonymous said...

"Boy was that Francis Fukuyama dude ever wrong!"

He was right. Democracy is spreading to the Middle East. It's being twittered.

Un Rosbif said...

1st anonymous:

I haven't got much to say about your post which mostly seems like a fair opinion, except this:

It is curious to not that pre Thatcher and post anthony Eden British Prime Ministers could be relied upon to wimp out from the merest whiff of armed conlict - that is where Galtieri misjudged badly, he was not dealing with Ted Heath.

Its a shame Galtieri wasn't dealing with Big Jim Callaghan - the last British PM to have actually been in the armed forces.

When the Argies looked like they might invade the Falklands in 1977, he sent an Royal Navy Task force to the South Atlantic with the explicit message to Argentina to come and 'ave a go if ya fink you're 'ard enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm

Whatever other criticism could be made of Big Jim, he certainly didn't wimp out.

When Margaret Thatcher became PM, one of the first things John Nott as Secretary of State for Defence did, was to decide to scrap a fair proportion of the Royal Navy including HMS Endurance, which although hardly a warship, was on permanent station in the South Atlantic and whos scrapping must have looked to Buenos Aires like an open invitation. not only that but the entire Royal Marine amphibious force was in jeopardy of being disbanded and the sale of Assault ships HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless was mooted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_%281967%29

Maybe it was a set up and the Argies walked into it. But I think that unlikely.

I realise that on a blog such as this, most posters will probably be Thatcher admirers. But, amongst other things she

# de-industrialsed the country, leading to the creation of a vast permanently employed underclass,

# she let The City completely capture the Government,

# and although I was a lefty at the time, if you were of that particular persuasion you could justifiably blame her for stealing votes from the National Front and therby laying the foundation stones for the multi-culti soviet crap hole we are now.

I'm an oik - thats probably redneck or trailer trash to you. I was a young oik at the time, so like young oiks are inclined to do, I went down the Navy office and volunteered for the Royal Marines - as there was a report in The Economist that Brazil and every other country in South America may join the Argies in a show of solidarity and it looked a bit touch and go at one point. The Navy recruiters thanked me for the gesture and told me they'd had a lot of young men come in over the last few days but they reckoned the task force would get half way down the Atlantic and there would be a negotiated settlement. Nevertheless, I had mates who were in the forces who were there and the Falkands has a certain emotional pull for me. It irritates mt that Thatcher gets the credit for winning something that her Governments incompetence started in the first place.

neil craig said...

The attitude in Britain is that France, for glory, led on getting the UN to "authorise" this, with Britain supporting in the Security Council and with a few planes. Obama was drawn rather than driving into it. Of course most of the heavy lifting is American.

But in terms of Obama's history this makes sense. He wants to be liked and this war is done with European support (mainly - Germany doesn't think it useful) and UN authorisation putting him on a different level from Bush& outflanks the "right". And it is difficult to see much other sense in it.

Mr. Anon said...

"Un Rosbif said...

I realise that on a blog such as this, most posters will probably be Thatcher admirers."

Dear Mr. Roastbeef: Thanks for your very interesting post. As an american, who was in high-school during the Falklands war, it was an interesting reference point. When previously I was a conservative, I admired Dame Thatcher. Now that I have become a reactionary, I share your opinion. She seems in many ways to have been diastrous for the UK, for all the reasons you mentioned. She also provided some of the steel in G.H.W. Bush's spine during the first gulf war, which was also a dubious contribution.

Best regards from an american cousin.

Mr. Anon said...

"The younger Bush's view was that his imposing father had wimped out and lost re-election by not taking out Saddam Hussein."

If true, this is just further proof that Bush the younger was nothing but a booze-addled idiot before he became a tea-totalling idiot.

I don't recall anybody giving a damn about us not rolling on to Baghdad and giving Saddam Hussein the full Mussolini treatment. Did anybody care about that? Bush was unpopular with liberals because he was a republican, and he was unpopular with conservatives because he was a liberal. Did he ever do a single truly conservative thing in office? I don't remember any.

Anonymous said...

""Boy was that Francis Fukuyama dude ever wrong!"

He was right. Democracy is spreading to the Middle East. It's being twittered.""

We'd better check the mail then for those peace dividends.
Gilbert Pinfold.

Anonymous said...

Did he ever do a single truly conservative thing in office?

The NAEP requirements of NCLB.

Obama wants to replace the NAEP with "attendance".

Thomas said...

I might tentatively suggest that the roots of Obama's motivation for this war lie in a feature of his thinking you've highlighted, for example, in The Half-Blood Prince: his fascination with Africa. Perhaps the continent just won't be big enough for two big men?

Anonymous said...

Step back for a second and think about the word "war". Yes, Libya could end up embarrasing if Kaddafi does not lose, or if there is a mess after he leaves. but really, was Kosovo a war? If it had only lasted a couple weeks would it have been a "war"? How about Haiti? Grenada? Panama? Somalia? Lebanon in the 80s (both when we had troops in there and when we just kind of messed around with bombing the Bekaa and shelling from ships)?

'bama figured we could just use the troops for something "good" and with minimal danger. He may be wrong. But that is what the judgment was.

legal eagle said...

"We should take Obama at face value. He believes in preventing genocides and massacres, and he is too blinded by his liberal idealogy to see the obvious downsides of bombing Gada?ffi's forces. Liberals like to do stuff which makes them feel morally superior in the present."

Sometimes the cluelessness and naivete of even people here drives me crazy. Obama is not a "liberal." He is an opportunist who loves himself and knows "liberals" will help him live in the manner to which he has become accustomed. Massacres and genocide only matter to politicians if the CIA and corporate interests have decided they matter monetarily (and only a few people even reap those benefits; the average citizen would be better off if CEOs were shot off to the moon and left there along with the CIA) enough to send other American people's children in to risk their lives. This Oval Office Occupant (O.O.O.bama) has neither done nor said anything that comes from a point of authenticity, that does not involve himself only. JFK could give a speech warning about secret societies being against the grain of the American people and you knew he meant it, no matter he didn't write every word. Eisenhower could warn about the military industrial complex and you knew he was trying to tell the American people something he couldn't say outright. Even Reagan gave somewhat coded speeches where he betrayed some sort of concern for the country and its inhabitants. But this one? You think? He's been criticized for partying and vacationing more than any other president but I wish he would stick to those activities, even on our dime. At least he isn't available to do as much damage. One hopes.

Olave d'Estienne said...

I don't buy Moldbug's line on this particular matter. Moldbug has made a lot of the figurehead status of the President vis a vis domestic affairs, noting that the Cathedral (bureaucrats, MSM hacks, and college punks) control what matters in policy. This is correct, since the Administrative Procedures Act essentially puts all the important regulatory decisions in the hands un-fire-able civil servants.

If this were an administrative matter, like what to do with girls on Navy ships who become incapacitated due to parthenogenesis (or who *gasp* don't take seriously Pentagon rules against fornication on duty), that would be one thing. The Administrative Procedures Act does have anything to do with giving orders to military units, therefore it does not impinge on the President's Commander-in-Chief role. Obama is 100% at fault for America's dumb strategic mistakes. No girls and no├Âne at the State Department can help him share the burden of blame.

This is no offense to Moldbug, whom I love just as he loves Sailer, but domestic policy is not like military maneuvers.

Sideways said...

We know young Barrack went to public school in Indonesia as a Muslim. But the mature Obama denies ever having been a Mohammedan. This raises the prospect of taqiyya.

Jebus, Albertosaurus, that's ridiculous. Yes, Obama is lying about never having been a Muslim. One of the requirements of being a registered Muslim in an Indonesian public school is being a practicing Muslim. He was like 7 at the time.

Your religion as a sub-10 year old says absolutely nothing about you aside from who was raising you.

Truth said...

"Your religion as a sub-10 year old says absolutely nothing about you aside from who was raising you."

Come on now Sideways, you know that's the most interesting man in the world...wait a minute, I'm going to go look up 'interesting.'