Yesterday, I shared the following article on Facebook with this comment:
"'I didn't like it when a certain former president — and it wasn't 41 or 42 — made my life miserable,' he said in a reference to Jimmy Carter, who infuriated the Bush White House in 2007 when he accused the administration of allowing the use of torture on terror suspects."
Well, the "suspects" didn't like it when you order that they be tortured.
If you think Jimmy was bad, wait until Satan gets you, you unrepentant serpent. You aren't forgiven until you repent in earnest.
You should know that since you've read the Bible cover-to-cover twice, or so you told your fleshly dad anyway.
"Prophesy against them, Son of man."
Former US president George W. Bush told a group of his White House aides at a breakfast Friday that he is "trying to regain a sense of anonymity," an event attendee confirmed to AFP.
Well, I have this to add:
He's complaining that Carter didn't go along with the pattern of Presidents, with a wink and a nod, building on the Empire building of their formers even while nipping at the margins for show to seem to the masses not to be of the same war-party. The Pentagon Papers shows the pattern. Exposing it though didn't kill it. It only disrupted it for a while.
What Bush-43 doesn't like is that Carter grew out of office. Jimmy wasn't a war-monger while in office, but he really came to better understand geopolitics after having time to reflect. What Obama and the other three don't like about Jimmy Carter most is that Jimmy has the best heart of the bunch by far. He's the least sociopathic. He might be the least sociopathic President in history. He's certainly one of the least if not the least.
Yes, he deserved a second term over Reagan. I don't doubt for a moment the October Surprise reports about Henry Kissinger and others running around making totally unethical, sociopathic deals with Iran and Israel to insure Carter's defeat. Iran was very naive.
What's most interesting is that Brzezinski didn't see it at the time to counter it if he could have. The war machine made a great deal more money under Reagan's plan militarily to spend the Soviets under the table, which Reagan did — not that that was the only reason the Soviets collapsed, far from it. Putin is very much aware of that history by the way.
Putin has been burned by the U.S. and isn't about to be sucked in again, but he's very wary about getting into another arms race. The Russians are spending very carefully now in the mundane sense. They could do much better if they'd focus on the non-military.
The U.S./Israel-backed and advised and supplied attack by Georgia and the U.S. threats to put ABMs practically on Russia's border along with a long list of other maneuvers are designed to keep Russia spending on arms so it won't spend on more long-term economically productive areas. The attacks were also a test so the Pentagon and IDF could see Russia's technological weaknesses. Russia has admitted to having them, and they were on display. Whether or not Russia tipped it's whole hand is quite another matter, and the Pentagon knows it.
The reason I bring this up is because Obama is just a continuation of the current-day Pentagon-Papers mentality in Presidents. Even his break from Iraq to pursue Afghanistan is a ruse. If Bush-43 had served a third term, the fighting would have shifted anyway. The neocons never intended to stop. The Worldwide Attack Matrix is still very much being conducted. It's only a matter of how quickly and how intensively.
Michael Ladeen and other neocons of his ilk wanted a WWII multi-front, total war just short of a global thermonuclear exchange (one would hope). Saner heads (that's not saying much) didn't want to be so unmasked. After all, WWII had its real Hitler with an extremely strong military at least to start. Ladeen and the others just haven't been able to sell the world on the idea that Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. The people just aren't being buffaloed, and the "saner heads" were looking out into the future when the non-sociopaths of the world would ask questions and seek accountability for those responsible for huge death and destruction. Therefore, they've opted for a stealthier, incremental, compartmentalized, craftier, more cunning and deceptive strategy. Ladeen's "honest" war-mongering is too risky. It's too Hitlerian if you will.
Even the more cautious approach is being totally exposed for being nothing other than slow-kill. The thief is simply quieter and more patient. Daylight is an issue though because there are souls such as mine who see that the neocons are still out for the same ends. This is Michael Ladeen's point. He said, kill, kill them all, and do it very fast. Face the music afterwards, after the "facts on the ground" have been established. This is Ariel Sharon's idea of rushing to grab all the land possible before the opposition can rally the softhearted to the defense of the Palestinian Arabs (Muslims, Christians, and others).
Ariel Sharon pulled out of Gaza. The Zionists paint that as Sharon trying to make peace. He was not. He withdrew so he could later attack without concern for Jews living in Gaza. Operation Cast Lead would have been more difficult if not politically impossible with "settlers" in the midst. Only an idiot wouldn't know it. The planning for the attack started well before the huge lull in fighting and rockets that Israel finally broke when it was ready.
The truth though is that neither method is going to work for them. They are being exposed either way. It's why they want to censor me and do in fact. That though also works to their disadvantage, as the fact of it spreads and exposes that they are afraid.
Now, all censorship is not fear of the truth, contrary to what some allege. Kiddy-snuff porn is not truth. It exists, but it is the height of false-heartedness; and one rightly loathes it and bans it from one's house and community and knows the unrepentant souls behind it will end up on the receiving end of their sociopathic evil. It's not that for which the neocons and others have censored me. It's not that I don't engage others in "fair" debate. I do. It's because I do debate and they can't refute what I say with anything that sticks is why they censor me.