|Failure in Iraq|
Compare the Bush administration's plans for Iraq to the reality of what is emerging - no timeline for
withdrawal; permanent military bases have been installed to sustain and support operations in the Middle
East; huge new embassy built in Iraq; and US oil companies in control of Iraqi oil fields. Reality has been
splashed into the face of the Bush administration this past year like cold water onto the face of a drunk. The
first splash was rejection by the Iraqi government of US oil company control. The end result of the oil
contracts that Iraq granted was that some 40 companies from countries all over the world were granted
contracts, and none were no-bid contracts. Whereas the US assumed they would get no-bid contracts, and
assumed they would get to control the oil in the fields in any contracts they got, the ultimate prize, none of
this proved true. But their assumptions were displayed by the media - arrogance on display.
- Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
June 19, 2008
- Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP - the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company -
along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil
Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil
company officials and an American diplomat.
- Iraq Names 35 Companies "Qualified" To Bid For Oil Contracts
June 20, 2008
- The potential participation of big Western companies like BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell
and Total SA in Iraq's oil industry has been criticized in recent weeks following published
reports that several were close to signing no-bid contracts with the Iraqi government. On
Monday the Times also reported that a small U.S. State Department team helped draw up
contracts between the Oil Ministry and the five major oil companies. The newspaper quoted a
senior State Department official as saying the team provided technical support to an
understaffed Iraqi ministry. Iraqi government spokesman denied the country had ever
considered a no-bid process.
Per the Zetas, the Iraqi government allowed the US State Department to wallow in their assumptions, to
placate them while the clock ran out on the Bush administration.
ZetaTalk Explanation 7/5/2008: The Bush administration made assumptions about their ability to
bully the new Iraqi government, and until they were faced with reality, those assumptions ruled in
their minds. There are, of course, certain low level officials in the Iraqi government who are more
maleable than those in charge, and on occasion a nodding head from those officials could be taken
as aquiescence. The Iraqis consider the US involvement in Iraq to be very short term, and anticipate
the US will exit soon, without an agreement to maintain bases. They have allowed those crowing
braggards in the Bush administration and their oil cronies to make erroneous assumptions, because
it placated them. There are more disappointments pending for this Bush crowd than the loss of
control over the oil fields. But this despised crowd will not be forewarned, as then they are not
forearmed. That is the Iraqi strategy.
The second splash of cold water in the face was the timeline issue. The Iraqi Prime Minister sided with
Obama, stating there must be a timeline in any agreement the Iraqi government would sign for future US
military presence in Iraq. The UN mandate, under which the US occupation falls, was due to end on
December 31, 2008. Without a new agreement, the US military would be officially an occupation of a
country with a democratically elected government. They could be told to leave, and would have to exit
promptly. Not at all what the Bush administration anticipated!
- Obama's Iraq Plans Vindicated as US Agrees to Pull Out by 2011
October 16, 2008
- Iraq and the United States have finally agreed on a security pact which would mean that US
forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2011. The accord became a major test of strength
between the Iraqi government and Washington since negotiations began in March with the
Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki demanding US concessions on the date of the troop
withdrawal and immunity for US troops. The pact replaces the UN Security Council resolution
enacted after the American invasion of 2003. The agreement still needs to be approved by the
council of Iraqi leaders, the cabinet and the Iraqi parliament.
ZetaTalk Explanation 8/23/2008: The Iraqi government has all along intensely resented the US
occupation of their lands, and has only postured at cooperation to buy time. Seeing the Bush
administration despised in its own country, and about to be booted out of office, they are starting to
assert themselves. The State Department demanded that US oil companies be given no-bid contracts
to control Iraqi oil, and did not obtain this. Among some 40 plus countries given contracts, US
companies have been given similar contracts, but not to control oil fields, only to repair the
equipment. The UN mandate for Iraq ends at the end of 2008, with any current agreements to have
US troops in Iraq, and to forgive their contractors for their crimes, ending. Iraq made it clear they
wanted a timeline, and no automatic excuse for contractor crimes, before any agreement would be
signed. They have held firm and are getting their way.
Ah, but what about the monstrous new Iraqi embassy, a fortress, and the many bases the US has occupied
around the country? Apparently, Iraq was to be the eastern White House! In negotiation with the Iraqi
government, the US was not only resisting any timeline, but was also insisting on their right for the US
military and their US contractors to operate in Iraq without the possibility of being prosecuted for their
- Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
October 22, 2008
- The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced U.S. negotiating power in the final draft is the
willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. contractors
and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that
occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country
to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement. Bush
administration policymakers did not imagine when the negotiations began formally last March
that its bargaining position on the issue of the US military presence could have turned out to
be so weak in relation with its own "client" regime in Baghdad. They were confident of being
able to legitimise a U.S. presence in Iraq for decades after the fighting had ended, just as they
did in South Korea. The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term
U.S. presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top US
officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics.
What does this bode for the US military in Iraq in 2009? Since the Iraqi parliament must approve of the
agreement, and is reluctant to approve of any US presence in Iraq, there may be a sudden exodus from Iraq
in January, 2009.
- Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle
October 22, 2008
- Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for
passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. In the absence of an
agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to
their bases once the United Nations mandate expires December 31.
Just as the Zetas predicted, Iraq has proved to be a house of cards.
ZetaTalk House of Cards 4/5/2003: There has, from the start of the war in Iraq, been a presentation
to the American people contrary to the facts. The media reports statements by the American
generals, the Bush Administration, congratulating themselves. Where does the truth lie? It is a house
of cards. This house of cards assumes that a win in Iraq, with oil flowing to the US like honey, will
distract the American public from the reality of what has just happened. More oil, suddenly cheaper,
will boost the Stock Market, so the theory goes. But what if the house of cards collapses! Does not
hold! Iraq is not won, Bin Laden reappears, the Stock Market so desperately held up by frantic
buying and selling among conspirators, an illegal act, falls to desperate selling with no buying. Thus,
the fear that this house of cards will collapse is why the invasion is talked endlessly as a success, a
fantastic success, congratulations in the media by the generals and the White House.
Election Fraud Fears
Who can forget the 2000 election, when Bush won Florida by a mere 500 some votes because the
Supreme Court of the US told the state to stop counting. Signs that the election had been rigged by the
paperless Diebold voting machines were too obvious to be ignored. And who could forget the 2004
election, when precincts in Ohio that serviced poor neighborhoods had too few voting machines and the
Republican Secretary of State promised to deliver the state for Bush. Ohio, likewise, was blanketed by
paperless electronic voting machines. No recounts were possible
The mid-term elections in 2006 were suddenly different, with the historically accurate exit polls matching the
results, and the Congress returned to Democratic control. Per the Zetas, this was because an energetic team
of humans determined to ensure integrity was hard at work blocking election rigging. Per the Zetas, this will
be the case in 2008 too. If outright vote rigging will be countered or prevented, what is a Republican hoping
to slide in on false numbers to do? Voter suppression is one technique and is being aggressively pursued.
- GOP Challenges Look like Suppression
October 18, 2008
- The Obama campaign asked Friday for a federal investigation into whether the Bush
administration and the McCain campaign have been illegally working together to spread
"unsupported, spurious allegations of voter fraud." The campaign's attorney wrote the request
to Attorney General Michael Mukasey after learning from an Associated Press report that the
FBI is investigating the controversial organization ACORN. In Wednesday's final presidential
debate, McCain insinuated that Obama is involved with the organization and claimed it is
attempting to sway the November election. The Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now, known as ACORN, has championed liberal causes since 1970. This year, ACORN
hired more than 13,000 part-time workers and sent them out in 21 states to sign up voters in
minority and poor neighborhoods.
Another technique is to point to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which was passed by the Republican
Congress in 2002. Unlike the name, this was less a "help" than a planned hindrance to select voters. Even
McCain's "Joe the Plumber" could not vote per this act, as his name is misspelled in the voter registry.
Nevertheless, he is a real person, and has voted Republican. The fuss at the current time, just days before
the general election, is not to challenge Joe, however, but to create so much confusion on election day that
the numerous new Democratic registrants are prevented from voting, or prevented from having their votes
count. Why weren't these challenges raised before? Why wait until days before the election? Per the Zetas,
this is deliberate.
- Thousands Face Mix-Ups In Voter Registrations
October 18, 2008
- The scramble to verify voter registrations is happening as states switch from locally managed
lists of voters to statewide databases. The issue made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which yesterday blocked a challenge to 200,000 Ohio voters whose registration data conflicted
with other state records. Tens of thousands of voters could be affected in Wisconsin. When the
six members of the state elections board -- all retired judges -- ran their registrations through
the system, four were incorrectly rejected because of mismatches. The changes stem from the
Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress in 2002 in the aftermath of the deadlocked
presidential race two years earlier. The law provided millions of dollars for states to upgrade
voting equipment and procedures, and to create the centralized databases, which allow voters
in most states to check their registrations and polling places on the Internet.
ZetaTalk Analysis 10/18/2008: The GOP is attempting to dilute the many new Democratic
registrations that have occurred during the Democratic primary and in anticipation of the general
election. They are throwing stones in the path of these newly registered voters, hoping to eliminate
their votes. Since registering Mickey Mouse does not result in a fraudulent vote, this will not occur.
Registrations are checked, in many ways, so that few illegal votes occur. What some may do via
attempting to register voters illegally, to benefit the Democrats, does not compare to the massive
voter fraud done by Republicans when they switched tens of thousands of votes via their Diebold
tabulating machines. Nevertheless, this noise will continue until the election, when the totals are so
overwhelmingly for Obama that the issue will become moot.
This fuss by Republicans can be deemed an attempt at ensuring voter integrity. After all, reports of dead
people voting are legend. But the usual Republican gambits are also afoot.
- McCain Employing GOP Operative Accused Of Voter Registration Fraud
October 20, 2008 05:03 PM
- John McCain's campaign has directed $175,000 to the firm of a Republican operative accused
of massive voter registration fraud in several states.
- Voters Say They Were Duped Into Registering as Republicans
October 18, 2008
- Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a
GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country. Voters
contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they
believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. It is a bait-and-switch
scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party -- a
small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states -- has
been accused of using the tactic across the country. Some also report having their registration
status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a
ballot they may be unable to vote.
And Diebold voting machines are still vulnerable. These reports of vote switching always seem to involve
moving a vote from the Democratic side to the Republican side.
- More W Virginia Voters Say Machines are Switching Votes
October 18, 2008
- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from
Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week. This is the second West
Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. In both counties, Republicans are
responsible for overseeing elections.
Per the Zetas, the trend is to correct these problems, not tolerate them.
ZetaTalk Comment 1/5/2008: There has been an active process at the state level to look into the
claims that Diebold paperless voting machines were used for fraud. Certainly the statistics virtually
screamed that this was the case. Diebold, a Republican company, refused to install a paper trail,
when for their banking systems their equipment has such a trail. Many states are planning to tear out
or replace the voting equipment if it cannot be stabilized. Others will take precautions to ensure that
remote tabulation changes cannot be done. Formerly, the states were in shock, seeing the outcome.
The trend is to correct the problem, and this ripple will soon become a tsunami.
California glaciers around Yosemite are rapidly melting.
- Yosemite Glacier on Thin Ice
October 19, 2008
- As signals of climate change begin to come into focus in the Sierra Nevada, its melting glaciers
spell trouble in bold font. Not only are they in-your-face barometers of global warming, they
also reflect what scientists are beginning to uncover: that the Sierra snowpack - the source of
65 percent of California's water - is dwindling, too. More of the Sierra's precipitation is falling
as rain instead of snow, studies show, and the snow that blankets the range in winter is
running off earlier in the spring. And snow in the Sierra touches everything. Take it away and
droughts deepen, ski areas go bust and fire seasons rage longer. Some glaciers already have
melted away, including the first Sierra glacier discovered in Yosemite by John Muir in 1871.
Today, the remaining 100 or so are withering, including Lyell, the second-largest, which could
be gone inside a century.
Per the Zetas, this is due to the crust of the Earth heating up from
the core of the Earth upward and outward, not from Global
Warming which only heats the air a degree or two.
ZetaTalk Perspective 7/15/1995: A key change, to which one
could point, is the warming of the Earth's oceans, around the
globe. This has been measured as a 6 inch rise, worldwide, on
all the beaches. The waters have risen because they are
warmer, and warm water takes up more room than cold water,
as all elementary physics books will report. How is it that the
oceans, so very deep and so very cold, have warmed up? Is it
the almost imperceptible rise in the temperature of the air, a
degree or so, as reported to date? Since heat rises, why would
this slight rise affect the oceans? Meteorologists will tell you
that the effect of air warming is air turbulence, not warmer
oceans. The oceans are warmer because the core of the Earth
has heated up, and it does so in response to Planet X coming
You received this Newsletter because you Subscribed to the ZetaTalk
Newsletter service. If undesired, you can quickly Unsubscribe.