Rumsfeld steps down?

[anart]

hmmmm - wonder what his devious little mind will be working on next...

By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers 12 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.

Bush described Rumsfeld as a "superb leader" in a time of change, but said his defense chief recognizes the value of "fresh perspective." He said Rumsfeld is a "trusted adviser and friend," and that he's "deeply grateful" for his service to the country. Bush said he and Rumsfeld agreed that "the timing is right for new leadership" at the Pentagon.

Last week, as he campaigned to save the Republican majority, Bush declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.

Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.

Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as CIA director for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.

Gates first joined the CIA in 1966 and served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.

His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer's support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first post-election news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way - Republicans and Democrats - to outline the path to success in Iraq."

 

[dant]

Hmm.... if it is true that Rummy will step down, does "the timing is right for a new leadership"
mean that the democrats can/will not look deeper into Rummy's actions since he is no longer
the leader of the Pentagon?

 

[RflctnOfU]

Hmm.... if it is true that Rummy will step down, does "the timing is right for a new leadership"
mean that the democrats can/will not look deeper into Rummy's actions since he is no longer
the leader of the Pentagon?

Let us see that this doesn't happen. Now is the time to apply pressure :)

Kris

 

[OPINMYND81]

Hmm.... if it is true that Rummy will step down, does "the timing is right for a new leadership"
mean that the democrats can/will not look deeper into Rummy's actions since he is no longer
the leader of the Pentagon?

I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that that's, indeed, the case. With all 4 newspaper of the arms forces calling for his resignation, with the failure of the Iraq war the top issue in the election, it is clear, even to a mornic, arrogant, sociopath like himself, that his days are numbered. Figure he'd go out the easy way, get a nice retirement package, maybe go back to Bechtel or where ever he worked before, and avoid any nasty court hearings on his conduct the past 7 years.

 

[OPINMYND81]

Of course it could be to make way for someone even worse. Right now they got a former head of the CIA Robert Gates as a replacement but I heard someone float the name Lieberman as a potential replacement. With Avigdor in power in Israel why not have another bloodthrusty Zionazi as SecDef here? Makes running the war for Israel a lot more smoother I'd imagine.

 

[PopHistorian]

My guess is that something will "come up" to make investigating all the criminalia a distant back-burner issue that goes nowhere. The Dems will likely ignore the voters' concern of corruption and continue to advance the current agenda with different tactics and a new illusion of debate. I always say that until truth vs. lies becomes the primary, really the ONLY, issue in political leadership, things won't change significantly.

The new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is an ex-CIA chief and deputy chief before that -- was up to his ears in nasty throughougt the Republican-dominated 80s and early 90s. Can you imagine that this guy, if he's a true believer, might be even more sneaky and effective at advancing the military agenda than Rumsfeld? Could be.

Saw the Bush press conference at which he kept repeating the core lies and the media never objected: that Dems and Repubs have significant differences, that the War on Terror is the top concern, etc.

I also think the relatively smooth operation of the electronic voting machines will take the issue of their tamperability off the table.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Gates is definitely evil, but he is, I think, of a different faction than Rumsfeld. Gates is a Bush I insider. Bush I hates Rumsfeld. I also think that Gates and Baker don't like the Neocons. So the civil war heats up. How are Cheney and Bush II going to work with James Baker and Gates? Something has to give.

I find it interesting that they didn't use the Diebold machines to mess with the vote. It seems that the Bush I/Baker faction are using the election yesterday and the upcoming Baker Iraq Study Group report (that may call for begging Iran & Syria to save the U.S.!) as a pincer operation on Bush.

So it will be interesting to see how it shakes out. The Neocons, by the way, stabbed Bush in the back this week, all coming out blaming him for bad implementation of their policies. Will they shift allegiance to the Democrats? The successful Democratic election was engineered by Charles Schumer for the Senate and Rahm Emmanuel for the House. Both ardent Zionists of course.

So I wouldn't rule out criminal investigations but they won't be done to get at Truth and Justice, but as moves in a behind-the-scenes power struggle.

My guess is that something will "come up" to make investigating all the criminalia a distant back-burner issue that goes nowhere. The Dems will likely ignore the voters' concern of corruption and continue to advance the current agenda with different tactics and a new illusion of debate. I always say that until truth vs. lies becomes the primary, really the ONLY, issue in political leadership, things won't change significantly.

The new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is an ex-CIA chief and deputy chief before that -- was up to his ears in nasty throughougt the Republican-dominated 80s and early 90s. Can you imagine that this guy, if he's a true believer, might be even more sneaky and effective at advancing the military agenda than Rumsfeld? Could be.

Saw the Bush press conference at which he kept repeating the core lies and the media never objected: that Dems and Repubs have significant differences, that the War on Terror is the top concern, etc.

I also think the relatively smooth operation of the electronic voting machines will take the issue of their tamperability off the table.

 

[noise]

What I am getting out of all this is that all of these shifts in power are, as Laura pointed out in her article today, going to put alot of people back to sleep. I can see/feel it in myself as well. It's a nagging feeling that seems to speak of "see there really is hope and these changes should be viewed as such hopeful possibilities."

I think this goes with the other programming that comes in the form of, "well its not affecting me so why should I care." Not that this is reality for me and it certainly does affect me, I just feel the pull of these things. Certainly anyone who got a few glimpses and thought about some few realities they may have been exposed to is fast asleep again.

No one in America seems aware of or concerned with Palestine. What a severely shameful situation.

 

[anart]

I find it interesting that they didn't use the Diebold machines to mess with the vote. It seems that the Bush I/Baker faction are using the election yesterday and the upcoming Baker Iraq Study Group report (that may call for begging Iran & Syria to save the U.S.!) as a pincer operation on Bush.

Although there is no way we can know for sure, I wouldn't be too sure that they didn't mess with the vote - the generally disliked Republican from Colorado got re-elected, which was a state wide shock from what I've read - and Lieberman also won in CT, so that's a little fishy if you ask me since he lost the primary! So - I get the feeling that they manipulated the votes in the races where the opposition was much less likely to 'go with the flow' of things, if that makes any sense.

I don't believe for a minute that this election was not manipulated; I just think that they had to let pre-approved Democrats take over the seats that were contested (to appease the masses to some extent) and that, perhaps, they kept the Democrats who would likely really fight the status quo out of the winning column. Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that 'they' would control the last three elections and just not control this one. FWIW.

I do, however, think that the Baker/Gates connection is interesting and very well could be indicative of a behind the scenes power struggle...

 

[Mr. Premise]

Here is what Xymphora has to say about the Diebold thing:

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/virus-finds-new-host.html
The virus finds a new host
The Israel Lobby and the Israeli agents/citizens which carry out its wishes - a group known as the neocons - are like a virus which causes a fatal disease. Like any good virus, it has to find a new host before the old host dies, and thus we see a movement away from the Republicans and towards the Congressional Democrats. How else do you explain a direct attack on the eve of an election on the very basis of the Republican campaign, that the Republicans are the only group that can handle the protection of the United States? The neocons are claiming they were fooled into thinking that their remarks would not be released until after the election, but the attack on the Republicans was so unequivocal, and so politically damning, that they could not have expected that it would not leak out.

Christian Zionists control the computer voting machines, and thus the outcome of the election, so the neocons would know that a decision has been made not to fix the results for another Republican win. It was probably determined that an obviously crooked election would preclude the use of the computer machines in the next Presidential election, and it is more important to save the machines to ensure the next President is the guy they want (probably Giuliani). The determining factor was the reticence of the Bush Administration to become involved in the Lebanon attack, a source of obvious fury in the neocon/Lobby ranks, and proof that the 'Establishment' - you know, the guys that Chomsky says rule the world - had taken back their traditional control over Republican policies, at least temporarily. It thus became apparent that the Lobby could no longer count on the Republicans, a group that is prone to listen when moderate Arab leaders claim that further American outrages in the Middle East will lead to a massive revolution across the entire area, with predictable loss of Establishment wealth.

Of course, through the Christian Zionists, the Lobby still has Bush in its pocket. The Lobby still controls all of the mainstream media. The only problem is to ensure that Congress doesn't get in the way of Wurmser's plans to destroy the Middle East in aid of the creation of Greater Israel. The Democrats are much more firmly in the financial pocket of the Lobby than the Republicans are due to the fact that the Republicans have other major sources of funding. As Stephen Zunes writes (Zunes is good if he's not protecting the Lobby):

". . . it should be remembered that it was the Democrats who controlled the Senate in the fall of 2002 when the Senate voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Majority leader Tom Daschle and assistant majority leader Harry Reid led the majority of their fellow Senate Democrats in voting to launch a war of aggression against a country that, despite their claims to the contrary, was no threat to the security of the United States. Already, leading Democratic senators like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are pushing for another war, this time against Iran, even complaining that President Bush has put too much emphasis on diplomacy and that he was wrong to have allowed the Europeans to take the leadership in resolving the standoff over than country's nuclear program."

Rabbi Michael Lerner:

"Bush is unlikely to do anything dramatic to push Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank or to creating a viable Palestinian state. There will be all kinds of statements that can be interpreted as distancing from Israel, but nothing in the way of real pressure. The Democratic Congress will be filled with AIPAC-influenced Democrats who want to protect Israel at all cost."

The Lobby wants the United States to stay in Iraq until there is no chance of the country staying in one piece, which explains why the Democrats consistently run from an obvious winning anti-occupation position. Whatever the Lobby wants, the Democrats will provide.

The neocons all started out as Democrats, and only moved into the Republican fold as part of the Israeli plan, created in the late 1970's, to create a Christian Zionist/Republican government, sympathetic to the concept of an Israeli Empire, in the United States. It is quite predictable that such a scheme would eventually wear out support for the Republicans, thus necessitating the Democrat fall-back position. Bush, who has some kind of insane religious vision for the Middle East, will call for a war, the media will dutifully, as always, follow along, and the Democrats in Congress will do what the Lobby tells them to do. The most obvious target is a renewed Israeli attack on Lebanon, this time involving Syria and direct American military help. There have also been some hints of an attack on Egypt to retake the Sinai, on the bogus claim that Egypt isn't protecting the border sufficiently to prevent the Palestinians in Gaza from rearming. An American war against Egypt would be something to see.

The end of the neocons? Hardly. They are just getting started.

Although there is no way we can know for sure, I wouldn't be too sure that they didn't mess with the vote - the generally disliked Republican from Colorado got re-elected, which was a state wide shock from what I've read - and Lieberman also won in CT, so that's a little fishy if you ask me since he lost the primary! So - I get the feeling that they manipulated the votes in the races where the opposition was much less likely to 'go with the flow' of things, if that makes any sense.

I don't believe for a minute that this election was not manipulated; I just think that they had to let pre-approved Democrats take over the seats that were contested (to appease the masses to some extent) and that, perhaps, they kept the Democrats who would likely really fight the status quo out of the winning column. Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that 'they' would control the last three elections and just not control this one. FWIW.

I do, however, think that the Baker/Gates connection is interesting and very well could be indicative of a behind the scenes power struggle...

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Just remember one thing: they ALL sell their souls to be in these positions.
Whether Democrat or Republican, they are all working toward the same objectives, as I see it.
They can replace, change-out and substitute the visible puppets, but the puppetmaster remains the same.
Political theater, and the public soaks it up like a sponge.

 

[kenlee]

I don't believe for a minute that this election was not manipulated; I just think that they had to let pre-approved Democrats take over the seats that were contested (to appease the masses to some extent) and that, perhaps, they kept the Democrats who would likely really fight the status quo out of the winning column. Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that 'they' would control the last three elections and just not control this one. FWIW.

I would agree. If events in politics happen for a reason then it may be that the recent elections with the 'victory' of the Democrats might be some type of signal of sorts to fulfill some type of staged 'prophecy.' What I mean is we have the Democrats now gaining the house along with Saddam sentenced to death. Saddam fancies himself as a kind of Nebuchadnezzar of sorts and it kind of reminded me of this excerpt from chap 5 of Reed's book 'The Controversy Of Zion' concerning King Belshazzar who was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Maybe this signals the 'demise' of Bush in some way as is similarly represented by the pending 'demise' of Saddham?

The legend itself seems to have been two-thirds untruth, or what today would be called propaganda. King Belshazzar himself was apparently invented by the Levites. The historical book which records the fall of Babylon was compiled several centuries later and was attributed to one "Daniel". It states that he was a Judahite captive in Babylon who rose to the highest place at court there and "sat in the gate of the king" (Nebuchadnezzar) through his skill in interpreting dreams. Upon him devolved the task of interpreting the "writing on the wall" (Daniel, 5).

King "Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar", is then depicted as offering an insult to the Judahites by using "the golden and silver vessels" taken by his father from the temple in Jerusalem for a banquet with his princes, wives and concubines. Thereon the fingers of a man's hand write on the wall the words,

"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin".

Daniel, being called to interpret, tells the king that they mean, "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting; thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". Thereon King Belshazzar "in the same night" is slain, and the Persian conqueror enters, who is to "restore" the Judahites.

Perhaps recent elections signal the fall of a Babylonian king?

Chapter 5 of The Controversy Of Zion by Douglas Reed

THE FALL OF BABYLON

Before this first impact of "the Mosaic Law" could be felt by other peoples came the event of 536 BC which set the pattern of the Twentieth Century AD: the fall of Babylon.

The resemblance between the pattern of events today (that is to say, the shape taken by the outcome of the two World Wars) and that of the fall of Babylon is too great to be accidental, and in fact can now be shown to have been deliberately produced. The peoples of the West in the present century, had they realized it, were governed under "the Judaic Law", not under any law of their own, by the forces that controlled governments.

The grouping of characters and the final denouement are alike in all three cases. On one side of the stage is the foreign potentate who has oppressed and affronted the Judahites (or, today, the Jews). In Babylon this was "King Belshazzar"; in the first World War it was the Russian Czar; in the second war, it was Hitler. Confronting this "persecutor", is the other foreign potentate, the liberator. In Babylon, this was King Cyrus of Persia; in the second case, it was a Mr. Balfour; in the third, it was a President Truman.

Between these adversaries stands the Jehovan prophet triumphant, the great man at the foreign ruler's court who foretells, and survives, the disaster which is about to befall the "persecutor". In Babylon, this was Daniel. In the first and second world wars of this century it was a Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist prophet at foreign courts.

These are the characters. Then comes the denouement, a Jehovan vengeance on "the heathen" and a Jewish triumph in the form of a symbolic "restoration". "King Belshazzar", when Daniel has foretold his doom, is killed "in the same night" and his kingdom falls to the enemy. The Jewish captors who killed the Russian Czar and his family, at the end of the First Twentieth Century war, quoted this precedent in a couplet "written on the wall" of the room where the massacre occurred; the Nazi leaders, at the end of the Second Twentieth Century war, were hanged on the Jewish Day of Atonement.

Thus the two World Wars of this century have conformed, in their outcomes, to the pattern of the Babylonian-Persian war of antiquity as depicted in the Old Testament.

Presumably the peoples who fought that ancient war thought that something more than the cause of the Judahites was at stake, and that they strove for some purpose or interest of their own. But in the narrative that has come down through the centuries all else has been expunged. The only significant results, in the picture which has been imprinted on the minds of peoples, are the Jehovan vengeance and Judahite triumph, and the two world wars of this century followed that same pattern.

King Belshazzar survives only as the symbolic foreign "persecutor" of the Judahites (although Jehovah made them his captives, as a punishment, he is nevertheless their "persecutor" and hence must be barbarously destroyed). King Cyrus, similarly, is but the fulfilling instrument of Jehovah's promise to visit "all these curses" on "thine enemies" when they have served their turn as captors (and thus deserves no credit in his own right, either as conqueror or liberator; he is not truly any better than King Belshazzar, and his house will in turn be destroyed).

King Cyrus, from what true history tells of him, seems to have been an enlightened man, as well as the founder of an empire which spread over all Western Asia. According to the encyclopaedias, "he left the nations he subjected free in the observance of their religions and the maintenance of their institutions". Thus the Judahites may have benefited by a policy which he impartially applied to all, and possibly King Cyrus, could he return to earth today, would be surprised to find that his portrait in history is that of a man whose only notable and enduring achievement was to restore a few thousand Judahites to Jerusalem.

However, if by any chance he thought this particular question to be of paramount importance among his undertakings (as the Twentieth Century politicians demonstrably think), he would at his return to earth today be much gratified, for he would find that through this act he exerted a greater influence on human events in the 2,500 years to come, probably than any other temporal ruler of any age. No other deed of antiquity has had consequences in the present time so great or so plain to trace.

In the Twentieth Century AD two generations of Western politicians, in the quest for Jewish favour, competed with each other to play the part of King Cyrus. The result was that the two World Wars produced only two enduring and significant results: the Jehovan vengeance on the symbolic "persecutor" and the Jewish triumph in the form of a new "restoration". Thus the symbolic legend of what happened at Babylon had by the Twentieth Century gained the force of the supreme "Law", overriding all other laws, and of truth and history.

The legend itself seems to have been two-thirds untruth, or what today would be called propaganda. King Belshazzar himself was apparently invented by the Levites. The historical book which records the fall of Babylon was compiled several centuries later and was attributed to one "Daniel". It states that he was a Judahite captive in Babylon who rose to the highest place at court there and "sat in the gate of the king" (Nebuchadnezzar) through his skill in interpreting dreams. Upon him devolved the task of interpreting the "writing on the wall" (Daniel, 5).

King "Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar", is then depicted as offering an insult to the Judahites by using "the golden and silver vessels" taken by his father from the temple in Jerusalem for a banquet with his princes, wives and concubines. Thereon the fingers of a man's hand write on the wall the words,

"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin". Daniel, being called to interpret, tells the king that they mean, "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting; thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". Thereon King Belshazzar "in the same night" is slain, and the Persian conqueror enters, who is to "restore" the Judahites.

Thus the end of a king and a kingdom is related directly to an affront offered to Judah and given the guise of a Jehovan retribution and Jewish vengeance. What matter if Daniel and King Belshazzar never existed: by its inclusion in the Levitical scriptures this anecdote gained the status of a legal precedent! When the murder of the Russian Czar, his wife, daughters and son in 1918, again, was related directly to this legend by words quoted from it and scrawled on a blood-bespattered wall this was at once an avowal of authorship of the deed, and a citation of the legal authority for it.

When an ancient legend can produce such effects, twenty-five centuries afterwards, there is little gain in demonstrating its untruth, for politicians and the masses they manipulate alike love their legends more than truth. However, of the three protagonists in this version of the fall of Babylon, only King Cyrus certainly existed; King Belshazzar and Daniel seem to be figures of Levitical phantasy!

The Jewish Encyclopaedia, which points out that King Nebuchadnezzar had no son called Belshazzar and that no king called Belshazzar reigned in Babylon when King Cyrus conquered it, says impartially that "the author of Daniel simply did not have correct data at hand", and thus does not believe that Daniel wrote Daniel. Obviously, if an important Judahite favourite at court, called Daniel, had written the book he would at least have known the name of the king whose end he foretold, and thus have had "correct data".

Evidently the book of Daniel, like the books of the Law attributed to Moses, was the product of Levitical scribes who in it patiently continued to make history conform with their Law, already laid down. If a King Belshazzar could be invented for the purpose of illustration and precedent, so could a prophet Daniel. This, apparently mythical Daniel is the most popular prophet of all with the fervent Zionists of today, who rejoice in the anecdote of the Judahite vengeance and triumph foretold on the wall, and see in it the legal precedent for all later time. The story of our present century has done more than that of any earlier one to strengthen them in this belief and for them Daniel, with his "interpretation" fulfilled "in the same night", gives the conclusive, crushing answer to the earlier Israelite prophets who had envisioned a loving God of all men. The fall of Babylon (as depicted by the Levites) gave practical proof of the truth and force of the "Mosaic" Law.

However, it would all have come to nothing without King Cyrus, who alone of the three protagonists did exist and did either allow, or compel, a few thousand Judahites to return to Jerusalem. At that point in history the Levitical theory of politics, which aimed at the exercise of power through the acquirement of mastery over foreign rulers, was put to its first practical test and was successful.

The Persian king was the first of a long line of Gentile oracles worked by the ruling sect, which through him demonstrated that it had found the secret of infesting, first, and then directing the actions of foreign governments.

By the present century this mastery of governments had been brought to such a degree of power that they were all, in large measure, under one supreme control, so that their actions, in the end, always served the ambition of this supreme party. Towards the end of this book the reader will see how the Gentile oracles were worked, so that the antagonisms of peoples might be incited and brought into collision for this super-national purpose.

However, the reader will need to look into his own soul to find, if he can, the reason why these oracles, his own leaders, submitted.

King Cyrus was the first of them. Without his support the sect could not have set itself up again in Jerusalem and have convinced the incredulous Judahite masses, watching from all parts of the known world, that the racial Law was potent and would be literally fulfilled. The line of cause-and-effect runs straight and clear from the fall of Babylon to this century's great events; the West today owes its successive disappointments and its decline even more to King Cyrus, the first of the Gentile puppets, than to the ingenious, stealthy priesthood itself.

"Judaism originated in the name of the Persian king and by the authority of his Empire, and thus the effect of the Empire of the A1chemenides extends with great power, as almost nothing else, directly into our present age", says Professor Eduard Meyer, and this authority's conclusion is demonstrably true. Five hundred years before the West even began, the Levites laid down the Law, and then through King Cyrus set the precedent and pattern for the downfall of the West itself.

The five books of the Law were still not complete when King Cyrus came to Babylon and conquered. The sect in Babylon was still busy on them and on the supporting version of history which, by such examples as that of "King Belshazzar", was to give plausibility to the unbelievable and supply the precedent for barbaric deeds twenty-five centuries later. The mass of Judahites still knew nothing of the Law of racial intolerance which was being prepared for them, though religious intolerance was by this time familiar to them:

The sect had yet to complete the Law and then to apply it to its own people. When that happened in 458 BC, under another Persian king, the controversy of Zion at last took the shape in which it still implacably confronts its own people and the rest of mankind. The umbilical cord between the Judahites and other men was then finally severed.

These segregated people, before whom the priesthood flaunted its version of the fall of Babylon like a banner, then were set on the road to a future which would find them a compact force among other peoples, to whose undoing they were by their Law dedicated.

 

[Windmill knight]

It seems that the Bush I/Baker faction are using the election yesterday and the upcoming Baker Iraq Study Group report (that may call for begging Iran & Syria to save the U.S.!) as a pincer operation on Bush.

Now here's something interesting. Robert Gates is part of that Baker Iraq Study Group. Recently, this interesting article appeared in SOTT:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2393750,00.html

America ponders cutting Iraq in three
Sarah Baxter, Washington
AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month's congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.

The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls "cutting and running" or "staying the course".

And as you know, the plan of 'balcanizing' Israel's enemies was proposed since the 1980s by Oded Yinon:

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm

And now one of the guys that's pushing that idea is to become Secretary of Defense. Aren't those Zionists just lucky? I guess their god Yahweh is lobbying extra hours.

Was balcanizing Iraq the goal of the war from the start? I think so.

 

[Mr. Premise]

More on the Zionist nature of the Democratic takeover by Xymphora http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/zog.html See the original for embedded links.

ZOG
I don't want to rain on anybody's parade. There will no doubt be some minor improvements in the lives of average Americans with a Democrat-controlled Congress. The craziest parts of the Bush domestic legislative agenda are dead, and he won't even bother to propose the most neanderthal of judges. The Democrats felt snake-bit and have shaken the curse of Rove, and it's good to prove that the United States isn't doomed to be a one-party state forever, no matter how identical the two parties are (unfortunately, part of what happened is replacing moderate Republicans with conservative Democrats).

On the other hand, that old bugbear of the militia movement from the 90's, the Zionist Occupation Government, is now in full force and effect. The House is entirely the construction of Israeli military veteran Rahm Emanuel (a man with a family background in terrorist/extremist Zionism who mysteriously and suddenly popped up as a force during the Clinton years, and was rewarded with personal enrichment by the Jewish Billionaires Club), with the new members hand-chosen to ensure full compliance with the Zionist plan for the Middle East. The most striking thing about the Democrat victory is the fact that the Republicans handed the Democrats three winning issues:

prosecution of those responsible for the lies which led to the attack on Iraq,

withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and

a refusal to become involved in any more wars fought against American interests,

and the Democrats ran from those issues as quickly as they could. The voters wanted to send a clear message to Bush, so held their noses and voted for Democrats who steadfastly refused to run on the issues the voters felt were important. The only possible explanation for the Democrat refusal to run on the winning issues is that the Lobby didn't want its agents prosecuted, didn't want American troops out of Iraq, and has some more wars in mind for the sole benefit of Israel.

If Rahm wasn't bad enough, there's also Nancy Pelosi.

Despite a possible razor-thin Democrat win in the Senate, the horse-trading necessary to pass bills will mean that the most powerful man in Congress is ultra-Zionist Joe Lieberman (and it is not a coincidence that Democrat leadership did everything it could to undermine the campaign of Ned Lamont).

Despite some talk in Israel that a sane Congress might hurt Israeli interests, Henry Waxman and AIPAC (!) laid such fears to rest:

"'There will be some Democratic chairmen who may not share all my views or have as clear a perspective on Israel as I do,' Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), a Jewish lawmaker, said in a recent on-line chat with Jewish voters, sponsored by the House Democratic caucus. 'But they will not be chairing committees dealing with Israel and the Middle East.'

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee also weighed in. In a statement last week, it said, 'Strong bipartisan support for Israel exists in both parties and, regardless of who is in control, that support will remain steadfast.'

'AIPAC works closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle, each deeply committed to strengthening the bonds between the United States and Israel,' the statement continued. 'No matter who wins the upcoming elections, AIPAC is confident that Congress will continue to support a strong Israel and a strong relationship between the United States and its most reliable ally in the Middle East.'"

From an AIPAC briefing:

"AIPAC reached nearly every lawmaker elected in Tuesday's mid-term congressional elections as part of its effort to educate political candidates on the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship. During the campaign that ended Tuesday, nearly every viable candidate met with AIPAC professional staff members and submitted a position paper summarizing his or her views on U.S. Middle East policy. A non-partisan organization, AIPAC has for decades worked with Republican and Democratic members of Congress to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel."

Just to make things crystal clear, the probable new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, is being investigated by the FBI for her relationship to AIPAC, specifically the influence used by big AIPAC donors (aka the Jewish Billionaires Club) to keep her on the Committee in return for running interference for AIPAC in its ongoing espionage case concerning Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin. As we know from the Iraq attack debacle, bad manipulated intelligence leads to war.

Another fake 'terrorist' attack, Bush calls for another war for Israel, the Zionist-controlled media lies (again), and Rahm, Nancy, Joe and Jane fall in line. The future of the United States is actually more parlous, and in more danger from another treasonous attack from the Lobby, than it was before the midterm elections.

 

[dhess31]

I was listening to some talk-radio on my way to work this morning and caught a sound bite from Pelosi talking about the war in Iraq. She said that though she was OPPOSED to the war in the first place, if we were going to GO, we really need to GO.

More troops were mentioned.

Uh oh.

Different lyrics, same tune.

This just goes to show that this article:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061108_PostElectionRealityCheck.php

was spot-on.

I thought getting out of Iraq was one of the priorities? Uh huh. I was trying to tell people that everything would be the same (or worse) when the Democrats get in power because THEY WOULDN'T GET INTO POWER WITHOUT SUPPORTING WHAT ISRAEL WANTS!!!!!!!!!!!

No one listens.

Don