Rumsfeld Resigns

[andyb]

Christmas comes early this year

[nomore]

That is fantastic news IMO.

Doe the proposed replacement, Robert Gates, have the same ambitions as Donald Rumseld though?

[Briaman]

[TonyGosling]

This - IMHO is why he had to go.
and yes, it is from that dangerous Lyndon Larouche site.

Revolt of Generals on Eve of Elections
by Jeffrey Steinberg
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3344generals_revolt.html

On Oct 26, several hundred active duty, reserve, and National Guard soldiers issued an Appeal for Redress to the U.S. Congress, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The short petition-statement, initiated by active duty servicemen based in the Norfolk, Virginia area, and sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out, read: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."
The statement is circulating for additional signatures, through the website www.appealforredress.org, and will be formally presented to members of Congress on Martin Luther King Day in January 2007.
The unprecedented initiative by active-duty soldiers and sailors, taken under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, occurs in the midst of a renewed assault on the Bush-Cheney Administration's bankrupt Iraq war policy, by a growing number of retired flag officers, who have demanded the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and, more recently have called on voters to oust the Republican majorities in the U.S. House and the Senate on Nov. 7.
Stopping the Next Disastrous War
On Oct. 16, The Nation published a cover-story, "Revolt of the General—Military Officers Speak Out Against A Failed War," by Richard J. Whalen, a prominent Republican Party strategist. Whalen began his piece: "A revolt is brewing among our retired Army and Marine generals. This rebellion—quiet and nonconfrontational, but remarkable nonetheless—comes not because their beloved forces are bearing the brunt of ground combat in Iraq, but because the retirees see the U.S. adventure in Mesopotamia as another Vietnam-like, strategically failed war, and they blame the errant, arrogant civilian leadership at the Pentagon."
The fact that a leading left-of-center journal like The Nation would highlight the work of a leading conservative writer and strategist with decades of service to the Republican Party, underscores the growing bipartisan movement to sink the disastrous Bush-Cheney Administration and prevent the launching of new preventive wars, including a strike against Iran that could likely include the use of nuclear weapons, and would lead to a perpetual "clash of civilizations" war stretching from Southwest Asia around the globe.
Indeed, in the concluding section of his lengthy The Nation piece, Whalen observed that "The retired generals' revolt may be inspired by their apprehension over a wider Mideast conflict spreading to potentially nuclear Iran." Citing retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Whalen wrote, "She speculates that the generals are trying to get rid of Rumsfeld now to head off a conflict with Iran. The Bush Administration," he continued, "has contingency plans to bomb Iran's UN-disapproved nuclear sites. Some under-employed Navy and Air Force officers are lobbying to strike Iran, but the overstretched ground combat forces overwhelmingly oppose it as the worst of all possible wars."
Other retired military officers have echoed the same view that the revolt is driven more by concern that an unchecked Bush-Cheney White House will soon strike Iran and, perhaps North Korea. In a recent New Yorker magazine piece, Seymour Hersh reported that a number of retired officers with whom he spoke viewed the recent Lebanon invasion by Israel as "a prelude to a potential American preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations." Retired Naval officer and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Hersh that, "If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israeli Defense Forces—can't pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million.... The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the [Lebanese] population against the Israelis."
Despite the lessons of Lebanon, Hersh and his military sources are all convinced that an American preventive air strike against Iran is all-but-certain, under the present White House policy trajectory, before Bush-Cheney leave office in January 2009.
Vote Against the War Party
Clearly reflecting this perception, a number of senior retired military officers—with recent combat experience in Iraq—have come out calling on American voters to put the Democratic Party back in power in the Congress on Nov. 7. Maj. Gen. John Batiste (USA-ret.) and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (USA-ret.) have given interviews to Salon, an online magazine, calling for a Democratic victory. "The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," General Batiste told Salon's Mark Benjamin.
General Eaton echoed the sentiments, telling Salon, "The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around," referring to the deepening Iraq quagmire. Citing other military officers, active-duty and retired, who share the same view, Eaton explained, "Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power." A lifelong Republican, like Batiste, Eaton added, "You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I'm not at all thrilled with who I did vote for." An unnamed active-duty senior officer who was also recently in Iraq, added, "I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership."
A senior U.S. intelligence source echoed the military revolt in a recent discussion with EIR, describing the situation in Iraq as "100 times worse than the picture presented in the U.S. media and by Administration officials."
Col. W. Patrick Lang (USA-ret.), the former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, who runs the widely read website Sic Semper Tyrannis 2006, recently warned that rumors circulating around Washington about a Bush-Cheney "course correction" on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are "hooey." Colonel Lang wrote that Congress has a few options to curb the war party at the White House. They can un-authorize the war powers granted to the President in October 2002, and they can cut off the funds for a continuing Iraq misadventure.
All of these issues are on the table for voters on Nov. 7, and the institution of the U.S. armed forces has weighed in about as forcefully as ever to force a change in direction.[/b]

[paul wright]

[blackcat]

Nothing will change until America decides to stop being Israel's bitch. Rumsfeld was/is just one - they are everywhere.

[paul wright]

[lostpomme]

Rumsfeld, Gates, doesn't make the slightest difference. Its all sleight of hand.

[chipmunk stew]

Please see my poll in the Critics' Corner:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5363

[Pincher]

[blackcat]

[Pincher]

[conspiracy analyst]

jewish control of the world theory to uphold, then his theory does fit the crime, but not the reality.

Israel is a US airbase nothing more nothing less.

Its references to jewishness are there to justify its existence vis a vis the Arabs and the western university educated intelligentsia.

But it has no more reason to exist or a raison d'etre as does an aircraft carrier in the Middle East sent by the USA.

As such it is viewed by the majority of the people within close geographic proximity...

[Pincher]

[chek]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Pincher]

Post Deleted

[Pincher]

[quote="Pincher"]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Pincher]

[conspiracy analyst]

[Bowery Boy]

http://www.rense.com/general67/rum.htm

[scubadiver]

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/ru msfeld2.html

[Hazzard]

Yes wonderful news, a scapegoat has left the building, only 100 more to go.

Anyone who thinks this is going to change anything, please wake up and smell the ashes. The real controllers are not on television.

Besides he was replaced with ex-CIA which is even worst in my opinion.

[Pincher]

[blackbear]

Olmert + Bush, I know who looked junior to me........

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html

Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel. As such, neoconservatism should be considered a semicovert branch of the massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes organizations like the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the most powerful lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent neoconservatives have been associated with such overtly pro-Israel organizations as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and ZOA. (Acronyms of the main neoconservative and pro-Israel activist organizations used in this paper are provided in Table 2.)

Table 2: Acronyms of Neoconservative and Pro-Israel
Activist Organizations Used in this Paper
AEI: American Enterprise Institute—A neoconservative think tank; produces and disseminates books and articles on foreign and domestic policy; www.aei.org.
AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee—The main pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S., specializing in influencing the U.S. Congress; www.aipac.org.
CSP: Center for Security Policy—Neoconservative think tank specializing in defense policy; formerly headed by Douglas Feith, CSP is now headed by Frank Gaffney; the CSP is strongly pro-Israel and favors a strong U.S. military; www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs—Pro-Israel think tank specializing in promoting military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel; www.jinsa.org.
MEF: Middle East Forum—Headed by Daniel Pipes, the MEF is a pro-Israel advocacy organization overlapping with the WINEP but generally more strident; www.meforum.org.
PNAC: Project for the New American Century—Headed by Bill Kristol, the PNAC issues letters and statements signed mainly by prominent neocons and designed to influence public policy; www.newamericancentury.org.
SD/USA: Social Democrats/USA—“Left-neoconservative” political organization advocating pro-labor social policy and pro-Israel, anticommunist foreign policy; www.socialdemocrats.org.
WINEP: Washington Institute for Near East Policy—Pro-Israel think tank specializing in producing and disseminating pro-Israel media material; www.washingtoninstitute.org.
ZOA: Zionist Organization of America—Pro-Israel lobbying organization associated with the more fanatical end of the pro-Israel spectrum in America; www.zoa.org.
Compared with their deep and emotionally intense commitment to Israel, neoconservative attitudes on domestic policy seem more or less an afterthought, and they will not be the main focus here. In general, neoconservatives advocate maintaining the social welfare, immigration, and civil rights policies typical of liberalism (and the wider Jewish community) up to about 1970. Some of these policies represent clear examples of Jewish ethnic strategizing—in particular, the role of the entire Jewish political spectrum and the entire organized Jewish community as the moving force behind the immigration law of 1965, which opened the floodgates to nonwhite immigration. (Jewish organizations still favor liberal immigration policies. In 2004, virtually all American Jewish public affairs agencies belong to the National Immigration Forum, the premier open borders immigration-lobbying group.5) Since the neocons have developed a decisive influence in the mainstream conservative movement, their support for nonrestrictive immigration policies has perhaps more significance for the future of the United States than their support for Israel............

William Rodriguez..........thousands didn't turn up for work..........

BNP don't do conspiracy theories anymore.................I wonder why.?

[Pincher]

Blackbear,

You've allowed ideological zeal to cloud your reason. You buy into too many political stereotypes. You misunderstand (perhaps willfully) the relationships between special interest groups and lobbyists on the one hand and government and the wider state apparatus on the other.

Let's get one thing clear from the off - the dominant political force in the world today is not a shadowy inter-connected Jewish elite domiciled in Europe it is a faction within the Yankee aristocracy that rules a contiguous land and global economic empire.

If this shadowy Zionist elite was so powerful why has the State of Israel diminished territorially since 1967 and its effective zone of political control shrunk since 1973? Instead of rolling back the Lebanese border to the Litani river, pressing on from The Golan into Syria and swallowing up the rest of Jordan in accordance with Zionist teachings this sinsiter group has handed back Sinai to the Egyptians and allowed Arabs/Palestinians to be exploited by their own elites in Gaza and the West Bank.

And all this when Israel's Arab neighbours were getting weaker...

As for neo-cons and PNAC - surely the behaviour of the White House administration in recent weeks has told you all you need to know about how much influence these intellectual misfits really have.

They've even fcuked up their own party so they can proceed with the break-up of Iraq.

[brian]

Pincher is determined to tell everyone what they dont know and how he and only he knows it all. He is also determined to slander Larouche no matter how untenable his slander is.

EG - " For the record some of LaRocuhe's economic policies are eerily similar to Hjalmar Schaact's (Hitlers sometime finance minister). His 'Eurasian Land Bridge' project is probably inspired by the Nazi's autobahn construction programme."

Well for the record - Larouche is the complete antithesis to Schacht who was the money changers frontman. Larouche's Eurasian land bridge, as with all his suggested infrastucture programmes, would be financed by government credit, not that of the parasitic central banks.

Pincher would have us believe that some "faction within the Yankee aristocracy" and not the same old bankers are the power brokers of today: as if the latters power has just ebbed away.

Give me control of a nations money and I care not who makes the laws" Mayer Amschel Bauer, who founded the Rothschild family

Who has control of the nations money supply today?

A couple of pages of links to Larouche and Schacht -

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Hjalmar%

[Pincher]

[brian]

Waffle is waffle is waffle.

"..Schaact, the Nazi's stooge who presided over the state theft of Jewish property.."

His aquittal at Nuremberg will have been good fortune then eh.

"In 1930, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was created using the “Young Plan,” after Morgan banker, Owen D. Young. Its supposed purpose was to funnel German money to the Allies in reparation for WWI. In reality, the BIS funneled money into Germany to rebuilt its might. Inspired by Hitler’s Economics Minister and Reichsbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, who had lived in Brooklyn, the BIS was owned by the world’s largest central banks, including Morgan’s First National Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve of New York, the Reichsbank and the central Banks of England, Italy and France."

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/morgan.html

Or Larouche -

"..N.Y.-born Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, a life-long asset of the J.P. Morgan interests, with direct control over Schacht exerted by the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. This was the same Norman who was the controller of the financial house of Averell Harriman, during all of the relevant years leading up to and beyond the Hitler coup d'état."

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1999/lar_gore_and_hitler_2602.html

".. in December 1938 Hitler approved the Schacht plan...The proposition discussed by Schacht with Lord Bearsted, Lord Winterton, and Mr. Rublee in London ...a basic plan forseeing the emigration of about 400,000 Jews in the space of 3 years."

..Reitlinger attributes the failure of the Schacht plan to the reaction aroused in Hitler by Schacht's refusal to increase the circulation of paper money, following which, on 20 January 1939, Schacht was dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank. However, in an interview given Rolf Vogel in January 1970, Schacht declared that the plan was checkmated by the opposition of Chaim Weizmann."

As for Hitler and Zionism -

Embracing the S.S.

Consequently, the Zionists brought Baron Von Mildenstein of the S.S. Security Service to Palestine for a six-month visit in support of Zionism. This visit led to a twelve-part report by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, in Der Angriff (The Assault) in 1934 praising Zionism. Goebbels ordered a medallion struck with the Swastika on one side, and on the other, the Zionist Star of David. --

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch06.htm

Pincher, plying the ridiculous is your forte.