Senate Sleeps As The Middle East Burns

There have been some hilarious goings on in the U.S. over the past few days, and by "hilarious" what I really mean is very, very disturbing. Last night, the Republicrat and Democan members of Washington's permanent big top circus aka "the Senate", staged a "sleep in" in an attempt to convince someone, anyone, that they actually give a damn about the Iraqi people or that US troops should be withdrawn by April 2008.

The debate was scheduled to get so "heated" that cots, pillows, toothpaste and deodorant were shipped for the hard working public servants. Of course, this makes perfect sense, because when you plan an all-night debate on an important issue, the first thing on the agenda is having somewhere comfortable to sleep, or perhaps something soft to faint onto in the unlikely event that a Senator actually says anything meaningful.

Fear spread around the Senate last night when word spread that Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert had been spotted in the building

From the outset, farce was assured by the fact that there was no way that Democans could ever succeed in actually getting past the debate stage because, while they have a majority of 51-49 in the house, Republicrat leaders have the option to use the "procedural hurdle" of requiring 60 votes before the proposal can be moved to the floor.

Not to be dissuaded from a good slumber party, after assorted candy bars and coffee, members bedded down for a few hours to prepare themselves for the expected fracas. Then, on the stroke of 5 hours in, something remarkable happened: lawmakers from both sides, in a startling shift away from the whole point of the publicity stunt, managed to come together to overwhelmingly pass a Republican measure stating that it was "in the U.S. interest that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists"! Go Democans! You show those Republicrats!

Unfortunately for the Republicrats, in passing this measure they were badly out of sync with their task masters in the White House, because just a few hours before the Senate sleep-over, the White House had released a new (that is to say, "newly cobbled together out of nothing") intelligence report that claimed that "al-CIA-duh" is planning to use use "battle-hardened associates in Iraq to strike inside the United States".

I mean, is it so hard for the Republicrats to get with the program here!? The White House went to all that bother of releasing a fabricated intelligence report claiming that Iraq was already a failed state and had already become a safe haven for terrorists, (aka "al-CIA-duh in Iraq") and the Senate Republicrats go and pass a bi-partisan motion stating that it is in the U.S. interest that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists"!?

What the hell? Do they not know that Cheney has burst several blood-vessels in his efforts to finally convince U.S. intelligence agencies that there are known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns and that the CIA just needs to provide the "intelligence" that he tells them to provide? Clearly it is in the U.S. interest that Iraq is a failed state and "a safe haven for terrorists", this was the whole point of the god-damn intelligence report! I mean, how else is the Bush cabal going to justify the next false flag terror attack on America? The terrorists aren't just gonna do it themselves ya know! Come on people! It isn't rocket science!

Understandably, such pusillanimous political posturing is beyond the grasp of the average American, but that doesn't mean that they should feel excluded from true, meaningful participation in the nation's march towards oblivion. Just as Roman leaders provided the masses with the grisly 'entertainment' of the Colosseum, the American government is also attentive to the needs of its subjects, and as the Senators were 'filiblustering' the night away, the DOD was outlining a plan to tap the creative skills of the ordinary American Joe:

Million-dollar prize offered for soldier 'power pack'

Inventors across the country are being asked to find a way to lighten the load U.S. soldiers carry on their backs -- largely due to the high-tech gear that uses batteries -- and the solution will be decided in a $1 million contest. (yay capitalism!)

The Department of Defense is asking a person or team to come up with a way to lessen the weight of the 20-40 pounds of batteries a solider carries on a typical four-day mission. The batteries power everything from soldiers' GPS systems to their night-vision goggles.

'Have a heart, lighten my load and help me kill more Iraqis.'

You see? The success of the "troop surge" is everyone's responsibility, not just that of a bunch of decrepit old buggers in Washington! I mean, come on folks, what true blue American wouldn't feel overcome with patriotic pride knowing that it was their design that helped U.S. troops kill and maim Iraqi civilians more efficiently? Or helped U.S. troops more efficiently seal off an area so that U.S. government-funded death squads could wipe out a few dozen more worthless Iraqis? So don't try and tell me that the American people don't have a choice over Iraq. The U.S. government is making it quite clear: you can shut up and just accept the dictates of the Commander guy, or you can help him out in his divinely-ordained task. The choice is yours.

Quite frankly, it's a little selfish for anyone to complain, because Bush really could do with some help at the moment. For example, two days ago, the decider in chief announced "a U.S.-led international conference which would take place before the end of the year to resolve what he said were all the outstanding issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I kid you not. This is the Commander guy we're talking about. For a gibbering idiot like him, sorting out all the problems of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a cakewalk, and he's gonna do it in time for Christmas too!

Finally, after years of what newspapers are claiming was a "hands off approach" to the conflict, the Bush administration has now decided to step up to the plate, take the bull by the horns and get a little Palestinian dirt on its hands (to cover up the blood).

This really should be something to see folks, no, really, because for the past 6 years the Bush administration's "hands off" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has included:

at least $3 billion per year in non-refundable loans to prop up the Zionist state of Israel,

the provision of the latest U.S. military technology to more efficiently murder and oppress Palestinian civilians,

the deliberate political and economic isolation of Palestinian leaders

and in general, the unflinching support of the Zionist agenda to thwart forever the right of Palestinians to self-determination.

There is no doubt therefore that a Bush government "hands on" approach would have been pretty spectacular, sadly however, we shall never know just how much money he was willing offer the Zionists so that he could claim to be 'the man who solved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', because the Zionists' it seems, are not about to give up their plans for a 'final solution' to the Palestinian problem at this late stage of the game:

Israel rebuffs call for talks on core issues

Israel on Tuesday ruled out negotiations "at this stage" on the borders of a future Palestinian state, rebuffing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and casting doubt on a U.S. push to tackle the issue.

Israel gave its response a day after U.S. President George W. Bush said "serious negotiations toward the creation of a Palestinian state" could begin soon.

Bush said the talks should lead to a deal on Palestinian borders, suggesting other final-status issues such as Jerusalem and refugees wait until later.

Lest some readers should it inflammatory of me to refer to the Zionists "final solution to the Palestinian problem", let's consider for a moment the actual details of Bush's plan for peace between Palestine and Israel that was so quickly rejected by the Zionists.

Bush insisted that, before any agreement could be reached, the Palestinians and their leaders must first "reject violence" and "accept Israel's right to exist", while at the same time neglecting to insist that Israel stop its ongoing policy of manufacturing fake Palestinian terrorism which is used to demonise the Palestinians as terrorists and provide justification for the arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder of Palestinian political leaders and civilians.

Bush's plan therefore was that Palestinians must, as a prelude to peace, stop committing acts of violence that are actually carried out by Israeli provocateurs - an impossibility. At the same time, Bush requires that Palestinians "accept Israel's right to exist", which naturally means Israel as it exists today, which means Palestinians must accept Israel's "right" to hold on to large tracts of stolen Palestinian land. Would you agree to such conditions? To use an analogy: Bush's demands are akin to asking a person whose house has been stolen by a neighbor to accept the thief's "right" to keep the stolen house before the person will be allowed to enter into negotiations about reacquiring his house, which will never happen if he agrees to this condition. Meanwhile, the Zionists will be facilitated in their continued efforts to find a way to plausibly exterminate the Palestinians.

Basically, Bush's "Middle East Peace Summit", is cut from the very same cloth as the Republicrats and Democans sleep-over last night - it is a charade, nothing more, and it is designed to placate the American and world population into giving the ZioNazis and the Bush cabal more time to finalise the planning of their next "spectacular" false flag terror attack, which will possibly involve several countries at once but will, however, on close examination, bear the clear signature of the real terrorists: Mossad, the CIA and MI5/6.

All in all then, a 'hilarious' few days here on old planet earth, and I really would be laughing if it were not so utterly depressing.

Bush Overrules US Judicial System, Frees Libby, Can We Say Fascism Now?

©Monte Wolverton

On Monday 2nd July 2007, the decider in chief of America over-ruled the decision of a U.S. court in June this year to jail Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, for two and a half years. Libby was convicted in March this year of lying to investigators probing the 2003 leak of CIA official Valerie Plame's identity.

Plame's identity was leaked to the press by the office of the Vice President in retaliation for Plame's efforts to expose the U.S. government as having lied about its reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the murder, to date, of approximately 1 million Iraqi citizens. Dick Cheney, the instigator of the leak, was not charged because he, unlike Libby, had more 'pull' to avoid jail time for his part in the conspiracy. Libby was the fall guy, but as today's news makes clear, he was always going to have a soft landing.

In his statement, Bush justified the move by stating: "with incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react'' to the appeals court's refusal to let Libby remain free.

H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer at Hogan & Hartson in Washington who worked on pardons in the White House from 2001 to 2003 agreed:

"This is a president who is not cowed by public opinion. This was a case involving a member of his administration, [...] so the normal rules go out the window.''

Is that clear enough?

When an American president feels confident that he can brazenly and without fear of retribution "pardon" a former member of his administration for committing treason against the State in a case the implicates the entire government in what amounts to crimes against humanity, there really is only one word to describe such a situation: dictatorship.

Just don't expect the mainstream media to use such an "inflammatory" word in tomorrow's "fair and balanced" news coverage.

MI5's Proxy War Of Terror

MI5's "Terror Alert" Generator

Just in case anyone thought that Gordon Brown's arrival at 10 Downing Street and his subsequent shuffling of apparently anti-war doves into the British cabinet might mark a sea change in British grovelling at the altar of the Amero-Israeli war of terror, the last few day's events in the UK have shown otherwise. In fact, what Friday's almost bombing of a UK nightclub and the bizarre events at Glasgow airport yesterday actually show is that the public face of the UK government, regardless of whose face it is, has little relevance to or input on how the war of terror evolves.

As regular readers of the Signs of the Times website already know, worldwide Islamic terrorism in the terms presented by Western governments is a myth. Simply stated, it does not exist. There are no extremist Muslim groups with the capability to carry out large scale attacks such as 9/11 or the Madrid or London bombings, those attacks (and many others like them) were perpetrated by a combination of American, Israeli and British intelligence agencies.

This week's excitement at Glasgow airport, where two men, in a poorly planned attack, drove a Cherokee Jeep into the main doors of the airport terminal and then set it alight, should have been seen for what it was: the work of two deranged nut cases, and an example of the extent of the true capabilities of any Islamic extremist groups to effectively attack the civilian populations of Western nations, i.e. almost nil. Critical analysis of alleged "Islamic terror attacks" however is virtually illegal in the UK these days, and the pathocracy in power in the UK demands that knee jerk emotionally-based responses are required from the great British public.

Flaming Jeep aka Proxy bomb at Glasgow airport

Mind controlled patsy?

It was for this reason that top UK (in)security chief "Lord" John Stevens wasted no time in responding to the event by stating: "Make no mistake, this weekend's bomb attacks signal a major escalation in the war being waged on us by Islamic terrorists" and linking the Glasgow event to the car bomb at the London nightclub the day before (without any evidence of course). Stevens waxed hysterical as he spoke of "al-Qaeda Mr Big's" planning a new series of attacks and that "the seeds of Muslim terrorism" beginning to "sprout". He closed with "make no mistake - strike again they will", leaving the reader with the uncomfortable feeling that he knows just a little too much about upcoming "Islamic terror attacks".

MI5 were quick to echo Stevens hyperbole by upping the "terror threat alert" to "critical", meaning an attack is "imminent".

The fact of the matter is that "they" will strike again, but if an attack is imminent, it's only because Steven's and his spook friends have just crossed the "T's and dotted the "I's" on the final planning.

Getting back to Glasgow, the event bore strong similarities to a long-standing tactic of British counter-insurgency task forces: the "proxy bomb". A proxy bombing involves a member or members of the civilian population who are forced, paid, mind-programmed or otherwise compelled to drive a vehicle carrying some kind of explosive to a specific target, at which point the explosive is detonated by remote control or timer killing the proxy driver(s) and members of the civilian or military population, depending on the situation. In Northern Ireland, during the last 30 years of the 800-year-long Irish war against the British establishment, this tactic was used on several occasions to attack British military or security installations, but it wasn't the IRA's idea. No indeed, to come up with a strategy that involved such a callous disregard for innocent human life, the cold-blooded services of the empire were needed:

UK agents 'did have role in IRA bomb atrocities'

Henry McDonald, Ireland editor
Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer

The controversy over claims that Britain allowed two IRA informers to organise 'human bomb' attacks intensified this weekend.

A human rights watchdog has handed a report to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which concludes that two British agents were central to the bombings of three army border installations in 1990. [...]

The 'human bomb' tactic involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints and included deadly sorties near Newry and Coshquin outside Derry. Six British soldiers and a civilian worker at an army base died in the simultaneous blasts on either side of Northern Ireland. [...]

British Irish Rights Watch said: 'This month BIRW sent a confidential report to the Historical Enquiries Team on the three incidents that occurred on 24th October 1990... at least two security force agents were involved in these bombings, and allegations have been made that the "human bomb" strategy was the brainchild of British intelligence.

Of course, the revelation that "forced suicide bombing" was the brainchild of British intelligence puts a very different spin on the massive number of "suicide car bombings" that have occurred in Iraq since the American and British invaded. The Iraq bombings are designed to have the very same effect in Iraq as in the UK, America or Spain - a population too traumatised to question the increasingly authoritarian dictates of their 'leaders'.

9/11, the Madrid train bombings of 2004 and the London underground and bus bombings of 2005 were designed to convey to the Western public the general falsehood that worldwide manic Islamic terrorism against innocent civilians is real. The most recent "attacks" in London and Glasgow on the other hand, were designed as a prelude or a setup for what is to come later this year.

At present, the situation is that Iran will be attacked, and the British intelligence establishment is eager for the British and world public to understand that the "logical" response to such a brutal act will be a wave of individual "suicide attacks" against the British public by British Muslims furious at the massive slaughter unleashed on the Iranian people - attacks similar to the half-baked attack at Glasgow yesterday - but with the addition of significant numbers of dead civilians just to drive the trauma home.

You see, the psychopaths in power are sincere in their desire to murder many members of the British public in an attempt to turn them into little more than Pavlovian dogs, 'salivating' not at the ring of a bell but the sound of an explosion or reports of one on their nightly mainstream media news broadcasts. As to what what the final outcome of such a Orwellian nightmare may be, the best guess at this stage does not paint a pretty picture. To answer this question, perhaps it is best to reference again Pavlov and his dogs. When Pavlov was finished with his cruel mind-control experiments into finding the best way to compel his subjects to respond automatically to basic stimuli - or to put it another way, when the subjects of the experiment were no longer useful - they were put down.