February 6, 2019
Like everyone, I am very upset about the State of the Union Address AKA the State of World War Two Address.
I like being against war, but he says he’s against war then promotes war on Iran and Venezuela.
As RT notes, there is also no timeline for a pullout of Syria or Afghanistan.
Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech sent mixed messages about where the president stands on foreign policy, analysts told RT, as his anti-intervention views clash with his threats against Iran and Venezuela.
While the commander-in-chief praised US troops serving in Afghanistan and Syria as having “fought with valor,” he gave little indication of a timeline for a possible pull-out from the region, despite previous sentiments to the contrary. The omission did not sit well with analysts.
Michael Maloof, a former Pentagon official, told RT that Trump’s failure to provide specifics about a withdrawal timeline from the warzones was disappointing – especially because the president had earlier indicated that troops would be returning home in the near future.
The president likely “glossed over” a withdrawal timeline because it would have been “very controversial,” Maloof suggested, adding that ultimately, Trump may even embrace his cabinet’s “neo-conservative approach to foreign policy.”
While the president railed against “foolish wars” as one of the few obstacles standing in the way of the “miracle” of American economic might, Maloof said that Trump’s threats directed at Venezuela and Iran show that Washington’s penchant for “regime change” has not subsided.
“These are very scary times,” Maloof warned, adding that despite its military might, the US could once again “get bogged down in another Vietnam” in places like Venezuela.
Likening the speech to pouring “old neo-con wine into a new America First rhetorical bottle,” Jim Jatras, a former US diplomat, lamented that elements within the Trump administration were working against the president’s stated foreign policy objectives.
What it appears is that this was a legitimately sloppy attempt to try to reframe the campaign issues Trump ran on in the context of a fully Jewish program of using the American military to enforce globalism.
I like that he said some anti-war stuff. Because no one else is willing to say they’re against war, even in theory. Both parties are staunchly pro-war, just as a rule. Wars with whoever are always good, according to the entire government.
The Senate just voted 70-29 for a non-binding resolution condemning Trump for pulling out of Syria. They didn’t really give a clear explanation as to why they want to be in Syria, but the general idea is just kinda “any war is a good war.”
But I am not seeing that Trump is any different at this point. He seems to have been absorbed by this system.
The fact is, this was a neocon-lite speech he gave last night. And as we’re trying to figure out what the hell he was doing spending half the time talking about WWII, I think it might have less to do with Jews than it has to do with trying to grab ahold of the idea of “the good war.”
And also Jews.