|
(He may still have an office in the Pentagon--I don't know--but presumably he's not directing the Pentagon anymore.)
Why is he gone? I don't buy that he was ousted as some kind of P.R. gimmick. He is much too powerful and dangerous an individual to be a "sacrificial lamb" for a one-day headline. I also don't buy that he was ousted because of the elections and the top reason voters voted for D's. Since when did the Bush Junta give a flying F about the opinion of the American people?
I think one of two things happened:
1. The voters tried their best to outvote the Bushite-controlled voting machines in 2006, and succeeded in some cases, thus handing the House gavel to Nancy Pelosi. The Bush Junta was about to attack Iran (probably they'd set up the British sailors' capture as the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to 'justify' it)--possibly to counter the threat to their power of the D elections. Pelosi bargained with them--don't attack Iran, get rid of Rumsfeld, and we won't impeach. This would explain her otherwise unfathomable statement, "Impeachment is off the table."
Why would Rumsfeld have been a major bargaining point? Rumsfeld is hated by many military and intelligence leaders, and may have been the worst malefactor in the Bush Junta--responsible for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other torture, rendition, secret prisons around the world, spying, black ops, chaos/looting in Iraq, the worst excesses of war profiteering, and, in my opinion, the mastermind behind the outing of Plame and the entire WMD counter-proliferation network (treason) (my view: part of a large-scale plot to damage/destroy the CIA, an operation of Rumsfeld's 'Office of Special Plans), and Rumsfeld may also be behind even worse crimes--LIHOP on 9/11 (he was AWOL during the critical hour, when NORAD was stood down), torture for profit or rendition/secret prisons/torture to track down witnesses/potential whistler-blowers on other Bushite crimes, blackmail of U.S. politicians, and the use of mercenaries (for torture, black ops, to create private armies). We now know that some people in the CIA whistleblew on the secret torture dungeons in Middle Europe, etc. Figure Rumsfeld was the operation end of the worst crimes of the Bush Junta. I think the good guys in Congress--people like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd--were particularly outraged by Rumsfeld. Cheney is just the political end--the liar, the apologist. Rumsfeld was actually instigating and committing untold horrors.
Also, the plan to attack Iran may have been Rumsfeld's project. To insure that no attack occurred--that the bargain was honored--Rumsfeld had to go.
2. If there was no "devil's bargain"--as described above--then Rumsfeld may have had to go because someone got the goods on him, on a major crime or crimes, most likely insiders (military, intelligence), and threatened to expose him, if he didn't go. It was merely a coincidence that this occurred just after the elections. He had to go--because whatever it was, it was so bad that it would bring down the Bush regime, i.e., result in instant disgrace and impeachment of them all--and perhaps it was timed to make it look like it was in response to the elections. Soon after he resigned, the Democrats ESCALATED the Iraq War, and larded Bush and Cheney with $100 billion MORE to kill more Iraqis until they give up their oil rights. So Rumsfeld's resignation did NOT signal any change of policy in Iraq. Why then did he resign?
----------------
Has the US policy on Iran changed as the result of Rumsfeld's ouster?
Gates, Cheney & Co. are pursuing a very similar strategy on Iran as was followed on Iraq--a constant barrage of false or exaggerated claims that seem intended to buildup to the justification for attacking them, or to create an atmosphere in which a phony incident could be used that way. I tend to think that there was a specific plan--the British sailors' capture--that failed to achieve the Rumsfeld/Cheney goal of war with Iran, either because the Iranians caught on and wouldn't play, or someone intervened. I have thought that Pelosi's trip to the Middle East in the midst of that crisis may have had the purpose of de-fusing it. Also, there was some strange report that Blair offered the "capture" to Bush, as the excuse needed to attack Iran. If that was the case, most likely Blair was involved in cooking the capture up. But it didn't work. And WHY someone or someones intervened may have been threats from Russia and/or China--either military or economic--to retaliate. Cooler heads prevailed (Pelosi?), not because they necessarily oppose attacking Iran, but because the timing was not right. The diplomatic atmosphere was too uncertain. To attack Iran will need a long buildup as happened against Iraq. It took a decade to soften Iraq up, with the handy excuse that Iraq had invaded (was enticed to invade?) Kuwait, whereas Iran has not invaded or harmed anyone, and is a good trading partner with China, Russia and others. It is important--from the point of view of our "military-industrial" political establishment--NOT to do it in panic mode, as the Bush Junta may have been about to, in fear of impeachment. It is not an exaggeration to say that a US attack on Iran could precipitate WW III. The first casualty would be Israel. And the entire planet could be destroyed with only a limited nuclear exchange. (Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark.") So the question to our political establishment is: How to attack Iran, prevent it from achieving nukes (and thus parity with Israel), and possibly get control of its oil, without sacrificing the entire human race?
Why would Cheney be so opposed to Rumsfeld's ouster, and why/how was he overruled?
Cheney and Rumsfeld worked hand-in-glove on the nazification of the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy. Neither man has any belief in, or loyalty to, the U.S. or to the rule of law. They are both power mad psychos. And they go way back. Cheney wouldn't care what Rumsfeld had done--and was likely a conspirator on many crimes. Cheney's mode is total secrecy, cover up, give nothing--not one inch--on oversight, accountability or democracy. He doesn't believe in democracy. So, if, a) the Democrats were using their new clout to oust Rumsfeld, and kill his plan to attack Iran, and/or, b) insiders got the goods on Rumsfeld on some monstrous crime, and were forcing him out--Cheney would be of a mind to resist, resist, resist, to go after the opposition with teeth and tongs, etc. He was overruled by the Bush Cartel because the potential scandal was very, very serious, and would have fallen on Junior, completely destroying him and his regime. What could do that to Junior that hasn't already come out? (--the list of very, very serious crimes is already as long as your arm). I would guess something to do with 9/11 LIHOP. But it could also be torture for profit, "snuff film" parties in the Pentagon, or any number of things connected to already known scandals (but far worse than is known).
Now think of these two power mad men controlling weak, manipulable Junior, both pushing the regime to a disastrous attack on Iran, with China and/or Russia threatening retaliation. The Democrats may have thought that Cheney would be harder to remove, because they play the game with the war profiteering corporate news monopolies that Cheney was elected. Rumsfeld, however, is an appointee. Remove ONE of the props under Bush that were catapulting him toward disaster, and you could better influence what Bush did--especially if you offered him the carrot of no impeachment.
This puts as kind a face as possible on Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table"--that she was trying to prevent WW III--but it does make sense. As others have noted (--including a business man caller to Ed Schultz two days ago), in a negotiation, you simply DON'T give away your chief power, right off the bat, with NOTHING in return. Pelosi is not a stupid woman. What did she get for this promise?
On its face, her statement was unconstitutional--a violation of her oath of office--not to mention stupid beyond belief. But I'm convinced that SOMETHING was behind it--something we can't see--and that she is not at all stupid. I'm just guessing what it might have been--partly because of her Mideast trip, adding in Rumsfeld's ouster, and all the rest.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
