After days of quiet on the saber-rattling front, Israel had the choice of keeping the silence, but has opted to keep the issue at the forefront: "Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who stands a good chance of becoming prime minister shortly after September's Kadima primary, defended his hawkish statements about a prospective attack on Iran this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post." Some say that Mofaz mispoke the first time he (recently) made a similar statement, but it can hardly be deemed a light-headed moment now. He is clearly consumed by the need to strike Iran, and I'm convinced that it will take place...if Iran doesn't invade Israel first, which could be any day or week via Hezbolah. (Article here)
The Jerusalem Post also reports (today) a new 6-member al-Qaeada cell made up of Arab Israelis, one of which seemed to be aspiring an assassination attempt against Bush. All six were arrested today. On the same story, the Debka File adds that "Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Zawahri and its regional operations chief have claimed that the cells planted among Israel Arabs are on the point of going operational." Again, keep in mind that al-Zawahiri's greatest desire is to see Egypt toppled by the Muslim extremists under him, and that a related desire is to wipe out Israel. How could he not be a part of the Gog covenant? Tony Blair was informed earlier this week by the Israeli leader not to visit Gaza as planned, due to an assassination plot there. (Article here)
My thinking is that the troop surge was not the only thing responsible for the reduction in Iraqi violence. I think the U.S. opted not to win the war too soon, though I can't be sure of all the reasons. In other words, the U.S. had all the major activities of the Inusrgents monitored and pegged down, but delayed making arrests and captures. I think that when Bush saw Obama on the rise, and the Iraqi boot on the wall, he decided that it was time to get the job done lickety-split i.e. before it was too late. His troop surge was just a part of that decision. With time running out, "The city of Falluja has been placed under tight curfew as U.S. and Iraqi troops are said to be gearing for a new offensive...Pick-up trucks mounted with loudspeakers roam the city warning residents that Qaeda operatives have infiltrated Falluja once again." (Article here)
That was out just yesterday [but the U.S. military denies the the offensive]. The same Iraqi media, three days earlier, reported: "Tens of thousands of marines and Iraqi troops are being deployed for yet another massive military operation to subdue the Province of Diyala...Khalaf said the forthcoming offensive would only target ‘al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia’." These things seem to me like mopping-up operations. They will make the Iraqi withdrawal more certain, and quicker, if they succeed. (Article here)
The Obama campaign raised an astronomical 52 million in June alone, allowing him to have a 300-man team merely for sprucing up his foreign-affairs image. Remember, the False Prophet is going to be in the thick of the so-called "image of the beast," where the "beast" likely depicts globalism. From 2004 to the present, Obama has been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and of particular interest he's been the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. I had said (in 1997 chapter on False Prophet) that the False Prophet would be involved in European globalism, and that he would the American sector of that globalism. Coincidence? (Article here)
I've been reading this week that Obama's vice-president might be Joe Biden. He is not only a member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, but the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (see website above for list of all members). We await to learn what the False Prophet's "two horns like a lamb" represent, but believing that they depict Christianity, I checked just now to see if Biden was a Christian of modernistic/liberal theology. It turns out he's a Catholic of some passionate degree. However, I have a problem when the two horns are interpreted as two men, and am open to another view that describes two aspects of Obama alone. Perhaps the two horns represent Flip and Flop.
The following just out in the Washington Times:
"President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have agreed to include a 'general time horizon' for a U.S. troop withdrawal in a broad contract currently under negotiation between the two governments, the White House announced Friday."
The use of "horizon" is intended to base the withdrawal, not on a pre-determined date, but on an unknown date when certain conditions on the ground are met. We can assume that those particular conditions are yet being debated, and while the agreement as a whole has not been accepted by both parties, the coming out of the White House to make today's announcement may herald the promise of an agreement. This is a poor strategy that Bush is being forced into.
The terrorists now need only to assure that conditions on the ground are met, and in the meantime they can re-arm and re-plan for an offensive when the troops are mainly out of Iraq. The Washington Post announced July 9 that "The second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq says the number of rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq that can be linked to Iranian-sponsored fighters has fallen in recent weeks." How is it that all Iraqi fronts are seeing a decrease in violence, including the southern front nearest the Iranian border? The article goes on to give one hypothesis: "[Lt. Gen. Lloyd] Austin said Wednesday he does not know whether the dropoff in attacks is an intentional gesture by Iran. " I take that statement to mean that Iran is scaling down attacks for the European nuclear talks this weekend, but this is likely a miscalculation because a much bigger Iranian motivation is to see Iraq devoid of Americans. (Article here)
Obama announced yesterday that he will be visiting Israel in the middle of next week, the 22nd and 23rd of July. The Israeli press is mocking him for his back-tracking on his undivided-Jerusalem statement. In consideration of the security threat in Israel at this time, expect Obama to go with the global flow in support of a Palestinian state within Israel. This global flow expects Israel to bow to a divided Jerusalem, if you get my message. In other words, Obama doesn't need to be forth-right with a refutation of an undivided Jerusalem; he merely needs to favor a Palestinian state within Israel as per the code: "peace process."
We can be sure that Obama and his team is considering how best to happify (that's not in any dictionary) the majority of Eurpoeans in his Middle East policy, for his game plan is, surely, to come home with European leaders smiling on him. Later, he'll do as he pleases, but for now he wants to make America see that he is loved the world over. This will be used as a contrast to the world's feelings about the Bush presidency. The world might just come to believe that a new era is upon them, an era of light and advancement. How can Bill Clinton possibly remain out of this picture, since he was loved by Europe? He must be aching to play a central role somehow. To hell with Hillary, sign me up Obama! Please, I beg fo you. There's only one reason that Bill wanted Hillary tio win: Bill. It was supposed to be the return of Bill.
Good morning. Just so you know, I sometimes start updates after midnight, as was the case for the above. I woke up to find Obama in Afghanistan. He didn't tell anyone he was going there. I suppose he's there to ask the Afghan leaders whether it's okay for him to be spreading a message of American-troop build up there. I think McCain will prove correct to say that Obama shouldn't devise a war strategy before visiting Middle-Eastern leaders. After all, they have the ultimate command.
Reports this morning on the Iraq front tell that the Bush administration is expecting the horizon deal to be made with Iraq by the end of this month. Just as I was thinking that, perhaps, the Bush people are issuing these reports to pressure Iraq into accepting the sort of deal that Bush wants, I read in Al-Jazeera that "there appeared to be some confusion over whether the agreement would lead to the US quitting Iraq entirely." It sounds as though Bush is telling the Iraqis, "take it or leave it." But it may also be the Iraqis making it deliberately impossible for the U.S. military to sign on the dotted line. The temptation for the Iraqis to go it alone is now strong. (Article here)
No sooner do the talks get under way today [Saturday] that "Teheran on Saturday ruled out freezing its uranium enrichment program, casting doubt over the value of talks..." The EU knew this going into the game, but we may assume that it will put more money (i.e. an equivalence of money) on the table to change Iran's mind. If Iran finally agrees after sufficient bonus' are tabled, he'll go home saying, "Fools, those Europeans." He'll have more money to continue nuclear activities. It'll be a situation in which Bush and Iran finally agree on something, for Bush will also be saying, "Fools, those Europeans." Obama will cross Europe soon and put in his two-cents worth, though as President he might throw in m/billions.
Hezbolah is saying today, "Fools, those Israelis. We're going to capture some easy-pickings hostages": "Hizbullah's deputy secretary-general, Sheikh Naim Kassem, would not rule out on Saturday the abduction of more Israeli soldiers in order to achieve the organization's goals." Bush is correct, you can't deal with these types; you shouldn't talk to them. (Article here)
Well well, look at what was said yesterday: "[Obama] received an unexpected boost from Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, who told the German magazine Der Spiegel that he looked favorably on Obama's call for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing most U.S. forces from Iraq."(Article here)
ABC News includes some Maliki quotes, for example: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,' the prime minister said." It doesn't sound coincidental. It sounds as though the Obama team, when talking with Iraq earlier, had nailed down Iraq's desired timetable, etc., and then gave it to Obama as his Iraq policy. In any case, I'd like to know what Maliki's "slight changes" will be. The same article says:
"Today in Der Spiegel, however, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq 'as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned...U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."
I've believed that Obama should have obtained the Afghan government's permission before coming out with his policy that he'll re-deploy 3 brigades of Iraqi troops to Afghanistan. He didn't say anything about such talks, but quite possibly the Democrats had also discussed matters with Bush-backed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, before Obama publicized his Afghan policy. It is becoming clear by reported statements on the visit that Obama wants to rebuild Afghanistan as Bush is rebuilding Iraq.
Two things are predictable, that the mistakes made by the Bush administration will pale in comparison to what the Democrats will do in this war on terror, and that Democrats will not criticize the mistakes as they hammered Bush at every opportunity. If Democrats think that they can conduct a war without making mistakes, then watch as it's their turn to show how close to brilliant they can do it. Already, by announcing that he's going into Afghanistan militarily, Obama shows that he is willing to tolerate the deaths and injuries of American soldiers that Democrats would not tolerate under Bush.
CBS is to interview Obama today, and I wonder why CBS got the first opportunity to do so. Should we assume that CBS is the biggest in-bed partner of the Democratic election team? Democrats do nothing without electoral calculation. While the rest of us live normal lives, Democrats are obsessed with ruling and controlling the masses. Democrats have just decided for the American people that they should be happy to pay the high price of gas rather than pump up more crude from American soil because Democrats want to cut the use of gasoline on behalf of fighting global warming. Democrats decide what the people should do, have, and think.
Democrat leaders are already acting as though they will control the war after the November elections, and Pelosi, on the heels of Maliki's withdrawal comments, has just called for high-level talks with Iraq on the same topic. In other words, Democrats are seeking to undermine any Iraqi deal with Bush and, as facilitation to that end, they are inviting an Iraqi sit-sown with Dems instead. It appears that Iraq is leaning heavily in the Democrat direction, but the hard reality is, the Dems have not yet won the election. If Iraqis crawl into bed with President Obama, they will be like two irresponsible lovers giving birth to an unwanted child: a complete Iraqi downfall to the Insurgents. One mistake will then follow another as Democrats find the situation too hot to handle.
Just today Israel Today (a Christian-Jewish media inside Israel) posted an article on the real problem that has been Bush's concern from the start, something that Democrats pretended to be blind to during the Bush presidency, though as White House controllers the Dems will make it their central war-effort feature:
Outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman clarified at the weekend that Israel is not necessarily worried about a direct Iranian nuclear strike on the Jewish state...
'The real fear is not that the Iranians will be crazy enough or stupid enough to launch a missile at Israel, but that they will have no compunction about providing rogue regimes and terror organizations like Hamas and Hizballah with weapons of mass destruction,' Gillerman said in an interview with The New York Times."
The New York Times comes out with this now because the Democratic machine is gearing up to run the White House, and the eyes of the liberals can now be fully opened to the realities. It simply couldn't have been stressed by the liberal media, during the Bush years, that his war was against nuclear weapons in the hands of Muslim rats.
I am sincerely seeking something good to say about Obama, but thus far I trust nothing that he says to be sincere. Check out from Reuters the EU word going around: "...[some European] governments wary of [Obama's] inexperience and evolving policies fear the euphoria is overdone...there is unease with the Illinois senator's cult-like following and skepticism about whether he can live up to the hype." This is being said because the world is nearing a crisis, not the best time for a feel-good rock-star president of the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will still these fears because he is a capable man, but the danger lies in the great number of voters and admirers the world over who'll support him upon the phoniness platform that he has erected for himself. Liberals are trusting a capable man who is at the same time a liar. What's worse, they're not trusting a two-faced world leader while holding their breath, but while celebrating. (Article here)
Obama has committed himself all the more to war this weekend, by his own words, calling Afghanistan "the central front." Obama has yet to be questioned about how many U.S. deaths he expects in Afghanistan in order to win the war there. When will Democrat voters ask? Will Democrats care about U.S. deaths under Obama as much as they cared about deaths under Bush? Are American lives important only when they die under Bush? We shall have to wait and see.
Not Pravda nor the Russian Courier nor the Russian News service have anything to say on their front pages about the Obama or withdrawal topics, as if they don't want the Russian people to know or care. My take is that the Russian authorities wish to minimize the importance of these things. On the one hand, Russia was hoping for an alliance with Obama. but suddenly, if it's true that Russia has been arming the Taliban, Russia might have Obama as a prime enemy. I can understand why that might paralyze the Russian leaders until they catch their breath.
However, we should first wait to see if Obama does go into Afghanistan, for God has the final say. Al-Qaeda could change Obama's current tune easily by abandoning Afghanistan and concentrating elsewhere. What will Obama, the Bush basher -- the one who leads the Democrat party only because he's a Bush basher -- do if al-Qeada concentrates in Iraq? Won't he look ignoble if he refuses to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq just because he has insisted that American troops should not be there? He needs to shut up about Iraq, and to tell his voters plainly, shut up about Iraq. Just shut up already. He needs to tell his voters: just shut up and wake up, and see that your seething nuclear end is at hand, Bush or no Bush. Instead, Democrats are more concerned about a one or two degree rise in average global temperature over a few decades.
On March 31st of 2008, Obama said:
"I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside Iraq so we could take advantage of or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in the region. That's very different from saying we'd have a permanent occupation in Iraq."What a fake. Nobody has been calling for a permanent occupation. What inflated terminology he uses just to be able to do roughly what Bush is doing but making it appear as though he's not taking a Bush-like strategy. He says almost nothing about what he'll do in the Middle East without criticizing Bush, while making it appear he'll do differently than Bush. The purpose is to get his Democratic voters to support him in war.
Note too that the Iraqis came out only recently to suggest that American soldiers stay in Iraq, but outside the major centers, as a ready strike force should it be needed. It sounds exactly as Obama said above. The reality is that the American military in Iraq, and Bush, have always known, for years, that a peripheral strike-force situation would eventually develop naturally in the war's exit phase. Obama and other Democrats make future plans known to be Bush plans -- that Bush won't publicize for good reasons -- but while making it appear as though they are Democrat-born plans. Democrats will make it appear as though Bush sends Iraqi troops into Afghanistan because he took his cue from Obama. Obama accused Bush of invading Iraq merely for political reasons, and psychologists will tell us that people accuse others when projecting their own bad traits wrongfully onto others.
It looks like Obama and the Iraqi government are so in love that they will both play down their mutual love. Keep your senses tuned up for any clue that Dems and Iraqis have made secret agreements in the past that they will try to disguise as coincidental similarities.
On the Iran topic, the six (or just five) nations overseeing the arm-twisting of Iran are giving the country only two weeks to quit its nuclear program, at which point new sanctions will be applied. One of the six UN nations is Russia, though I have yet to read a comment made by the Russians on Iran's recent arrogance (i.e. coming to the Geneva talks with nothing to offer but a stiff refusal to comply). Can we see how Russia is being forced to play both sides, since Iran is one of it's major trading partners, and how it may act as a spy for Iran, sharing with Iranian leaders what the West's strategy is? Pravda has nothing to say on the Geneva talks, and although It published an article on the talks before they occurred, the article said nothing on what the Russian leaders/diplomats were feeling, thinking, or saying.
I found an article telling that Medvedev and Ahmadinejad spoke by phone on the eve of the talks (according to both Iranian and Russian media reports), and that Medvedev directed the Iranian leader "to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to clarify questions remaining about the Iranian nuclear programme." Sounds good. Sounds like Russia is backing the West and twisting Iran's arm too. But not really. Medvedev's quote, since the Russians insist that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons, simply means that Russia is directing Iran to expose to the IAEA that its nuclear program conforms to IAEA rules for producing peaceful-purpose nuclear energy. There is absolutely no arm-twising, and no threat, coming from Russia. (Article here)
The Iranian representative (Saeed Jalili) at the talks reported to the Iranian press (IRNA) that the talks were "constructive and progressing," when the reality is that the Western side are disappointed and threatening. Although Ahmadinejad continues to call the other side "enemies," Javier Solana wants to believe that some progress was made. Iran has indicated that it wants to discuss points of disagreement. Yeah, sure, for a long time if possible. (Article here)
Ahmadinejad also told his people that Iran can become the world's number one economy at this particular time. One easily realizes that he takes his people for fools, and lies outright in efforts to keep them asleep to the realities. I suppose we should expect more saber rattling soon. (Article here)
I wonder if the Obama team has been having private talks with Iran, or if they are developing the raport that the Bush administration refuses. Although the West expects Obama to oppose Iran's nuclear technology, I'm keeping a special antenna up for any hint of his respect for Iran's positions, or any phrase that appears intended to turn around the adverse way the West feels about Iran. If those hints come out, I'll know that Dems have been drunk in bed with Ahmadinejad.
Note that Obama is visiting Germany and France this week, the two nations siding with Russia during Bush's Iraqi invasion. In Afghanistan this past weekend, Obama made sure to stress that his approach to world affairs, unlike Bush's, would be bilateral, by which he meant that he'll adopt (or be sypathetic to) the positions of other nations more than Bush was willing to, and to give them more favors, in return for friendship with other nations. This is akin to the Whore of Revelation, to fornicate with godless nations as one does with a prostitute.
What does Afghanistan mean to Jesus Christ, Obama, that you would offer that nation the money of Americans who have not consented to give it? Are you trying to fix the curse of God upon the nation? Bush was wrong to dish out billions of American dollars for re-building Iraq, for Jesus Christ aims to punish and finally destroy Babylon, and yet here you are promising to make the same mistake with Afghanistan, a country that pushes Mohammad as the true messiah.
What do France and Germany mean to Jesus Christ, Obama, you who proclaim to be his follower? Haven't those nations long abandoned Him? What is this you are doing, going throughout the world, making partners and pacts with nations that Jesus Christ wishes to humble and cut off? Are you planning to announce that what you're doing is in the name of Jesus Christ? He's twisted because he's acting in concert with, and on behalf of, an American political party that largely despises Jesus Christ and/or believes in a modernistic Jesus Christ and/or is in the process of re-defining Him.
English prime minister Gordon Brown was in the Knesset (Jerusalem) today, urging Israelis to split the city with Palestinians. But, Mr. Brown, if you want to stave off Armageddon, don't give away the east side of the city that will be renewed for Jesus Christ. He doesn't want His capital to be the Palestinian capital whatsoever. Who do these black lights think they are? Why does Israel entertain them? (Article here)
Al-Jazeera makes a comment on Obama's Afghan plans that I wanted to make: "An important aspect [Obama] should have considered is that the Taliban, disagreeable as they may be, do not constitute a threat to the US as al-Qaeda does… unless Afghanistan is under foreign [i.e. U.S.] occupation." In other words, the Taliban, wicked as it is, wants only to rule Afghanistan, and was never a spearhead against the West. What will Obama do if al-Qaeda in Afghanistan retreats across the Pakistani border? Will he fight the Taliban instead and make a hypocrite of himself, since he's blasted Bush for fighting Saddam...whom Democrats insist was never a threat to the United States? (Article here)
Just learned that Obama flew to Basra (southern Iraq) first this morning before flying to the Iraqi capital and arriving in early afternoon. "A government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said [today] the government did not endorse a fixed date. But he said, 'We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,'..." The way in which this is phrased doesn't necessarily violate the Iraq talks with Bush, exactly the way the sentence was intended. But one still reads into it that Maliki and Obama are holding hands while Bush is forsaken. Obama then met with general Petraeus, and I'm sure the air between them was a little cold (since Petraeus doesn't share a get-out-quick timetable). (Article here)
There's no news today on the Iran-Hezbolah axis, but the budding Syria-Lebanon alliance continues to advance in large strides. Syria seems beside itself at having Hezbolah figure so prominently in the Lebanese government, and embassies are being planned in both countries. Syria's fall to Gog at roughly the time of Israel's fall is shared in Isaiah 17, if you care to read it. Verse 3 tells that Damascus (Syrian capital) will lose its royal power, and as a result will be like the fading glory of Israel in that day. The fall of Syria and Israel are tied together, I assume, because the same Gog invades both. Egypt's fall is then found in chapter 19, and we see Gog in verse 4. I'm not including the quotes here so that you'll find a Bible and read and consider other details of these prophecies.
Hmm, so far it feels as though the Obama trip is less interesting than anti-climactic. Talk to you tomorrow.
I'm expecting Gog to become the unwanted Iraqi ruler, first of all (i.e. subject to correction), by the summer of 2009. Something to be entered into this picture is the Iraqi national election, which I've just learned (today) must be held before the end of 2009, according to the Iraqi constitution. This makes possible Gog's victory in that election, though I doubt it.
It's Daniel 11:21 where I find that Gog will be an unwanted (the Hebrew word means "rejected") ruler of Iraq. I suppose it's possible to be elected democratically and yet be unwanted by many, but the Daniel text also tells that Iraqis "will not grant to him the honor of the ruler." This phrasing could mean one of two possible things, or both: 1) that the majority of Iraqis simply won't honor him, and/or, 2) that Gog becomes the ruler by means other than the accepted method. I lean toward the latter.
Knowing now that the accepted method will be by democratic election, how do we suppose Gog will seize Iraq? Daniel 11:21 says that "he will seize the kingdom by intrigues (or smooth talk)." How can we interpret this statement in light of the current Iraqi situation? Smooth talk does find use in winning an election, as Obama well knows, but the statement, and especially the term, "sieze," suggest something other than winning an election fair and square. Perhaps he and his voting block will cheat on election day, and frighten many Iraqis to the point of not coming out to vote...so that Gog wins NOT fair and square.
As I've read the Daniel text above, I've always envisioned a crisis in Iraq that allows Gog to sieze the nation out of what he insists is a necessary measure for the country's survival. Right now no such crisis seems to exist, though I expect that the Insurgency will explode with violent activity after Obama's withdrawal allows for it. Democrats have been worried about their withdrawal plans in light of the election being held late in 2009, and they have generally comforted themselves in the belief that Obama's timetable, starting in early 2009, will leave sufficient American soldiers to assure a smooth Iraqi election. Famous last words?
Let's look at Obama's recent words on the subject of Iraqi withdrawal:
"'Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition -- despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government,' Obama wrote in his op-ed." (Article here)
As always, Obama paints the Bush administration in a false and negative light. It's not true that Bush doesn't embrace Iraqi soverenty, for in fact it has been his very goal. It's not true that Bush doesn't want the Iraqis to fend for themselves, as this has been his very goal. The problem is Obama, for he wants to gamble on giving the Iraqi situation wholly to the Iraqi military. This is not kid's baseball, Mr. Obama. Bush's true position is that it's foolish to take a chance in Iraq at this time. The Iraqi government is being pressured to go it alone from various anti-Amercan groups, and as such Iraq is about to make a foolish decision...in concert with Obama's foolish decision. It may be just what God wants, because Babylon must suffer, but this is to no credit to Obama, for he is not doing the work of God by any means; he can't even tell the truth in his lust to become the president of the United States (how will he ever make a good president???). Continuously, Obama speaks falsely, making him progessively a better candidate for the False Prophet.
Daniel 11 reveals that Gog will call out for fighters in his cause. I expect that many Sunnis, who betrayed al-Qaeda recently, and who are most-responsible for weakening al-Qaeda, will join Gog's movement. Did you catch that? It's not the Iraqi military that is to be credited so much for the recent turn of events in Iraq, but the Sunnis who betrayed the al-Qaeda Sunnis. But what if those Sunnis turned again and supported Gog's seizure of Iraq?
I've considered a coup by Gog, though one without a military effort. I'd expect it before the Iraqi elections, for Daniel's statement would make much sense if Gog seized Iraq while the election process was under way.
In today's news, "U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama traveled to Anbar province on Tuesday [today] to meet Sunni Arab tribal leaders whose decision to fight al Qaeda helped change the course of the conflict in Iraq." The leading Sunni group in opposition to al-Qaeda is the Awakening Council, led by Ahmed Abu Risha. Although "Abu Risha said tribal chiefs told Obama any withdrawal of U.S. forces from Anbar should be carried out cautiously," others in the Awakening Council might not be as zealously opposed to al-Qaeda as Risha.(Article here)
There are bound to be al-Qaeda spies in the Awakening Council...who might be notifying al-Qaeda right now that their little foolish American "friend" has arrived to Anbar. "'We told him the withdrawal of U.S forces can happen when Iraqi forces are capable and ready to deal with the security situation in the province,' Abu Risha told Reuters after the meeting in the local capital Ramadi." As he sounds like Bush rather than Obama, it certifies in my mind that Abu Risha is a sincere opponent of al-Qaeda. I can't think of any other reason that a Sunni would like Obama other than his will to remove Americans from Iraq. This leaves the American liberal press with less than something to crow about, which may explain why there is little news on the topic today of Obama, today and yesterday. The Times (United Kingdom) has an article entitled, "Iraqis Underwhelmed by Media Circus for Barack Obama Visit."
Which Sunnis among the Awakening Council are the al-Qaeda spies? The ones who love Obama.
The Serb war criminal, Radovan Karadzic, has been caught. This is relavant because I believe Serbs were Amorites of the Gareb hill -- after which Serbs and Croats (= "Krvati") were named -- less than two miles from ancient Jerusalem. It's all the more relative because I have significant evidence that Templarism, Rosicrucianism, Rollo the Dane, the Bavarian/Hebrew Illuminati, and modern Zionism, were from Garebites...and perhaps also from Sorbs of Lusatia. I had traced the Laz Caucasians (= the Biblical dragon) to Lusatia (German-Polish border region).
Pravda has a report out today tarnishing the Russian nation, but only because the report appeared in a Sudanese media:
"Russia has been accused of delivering military hardware to Sudan in violation of UN Resolution 1591...A Sudanese newspaper wrote that the government of Sudan received a batch of Russian MiG-29 fighter jets. A source of the newspaper in the Sudanese army said that 12 fighters had been secretly delivered to Sudan from Belarus...Moscow officially rejects it, although there were several scandals on the matter before."
Remember, al-Qaeda was early in Sudan, and Iran has a special relationship with the nation for to achieve the nuclear grin. Sudan (as "Cush") is also an ally of Gog in Ezekiel 38. I should mention here that, after finding a Garebite alliance with the Nebelungs (a Burgundian branch) of France, I felt certain that they traced to a hill smack next to Gareb, called Neballat. It seems likely that Nebelungs named, or were named after, the ancient hill of Nob, thought to be about two miles north of ancient Jerusalem (in what is now Shufat). But having traced Nebelungs ultimately from the Aten cult of Upper Egypt, I wondered whether they developed into Nubians...who took over Cush.
I had traced a major portion of Merovingian (i.e. the first) Franks to the locality of Meroe, or Merowe, of what is now Sudan, and to mythical Merops of what was then Ethiopia. Merovingians were center stage in Templarism, and their tracing back to ancient Jerusalem explains why Templars sought to, and succeeded in, conquering Jerusalem (1099 AD). I also discovered that Nebelungs and Merovingians were inseparable. Although they would like us to believe that they trace back to king David of Israel, or even the blood of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the fact is they trace to the Hebrew Amorites of Babylon -- the dragon cult of Babylon. Nebelungs merged with Babenburgs of Grabfeld, a locality (beside Bavaria) that must also be named after Garebites. I had traced the Freemasonic founders of the United States to the same lot. Greater details (but not all), if you're interested, are in this short treatment.
Obama will be in Israel tomorrow, with a problem. After claiming that Jerusalem should belong exclusively to Israel, his campaign has changed his official position thus: "Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties." Poor Obama. He will never be able to push a personal or Democrat position on the "peace process" unless he breaks the spirit of this current position in which he promises to keep his opinions to himself and let the two parties decide as they will. If ever he actively joins the position of the Quartet, and Britain, he will be despised by Hebrews and be labelled by them a liar. The fact is, he is refusing to give his position on Jerusalem at this time, because he doesn't want to jeopardize his election, this being a dishonest tactic because voters have the right to know his position. (Article here)
Obama had a news conference for about an hour in Jordan today, but nothing significant was said. It was re-iterated by his team that when he said he wanted an undivided Jerusalem, what he meant was that he didn't want to see barbed wire dividing the city. The Israelis aren't buying this duplicity, but the question is, how many Democrats are? Or, how many Democrats will vote for him even though they see his two-faced character? Won't he also betray his voters if that's the character ruling over him?
What does it say about the man where, "Asked whether he would have supported the surge knowing what he knows now, Obama said no" (question was posed to him today in Jordan). Obama voted against the surge. It takes integrity to admit a political mistake, and Obama chose to exercise none in this case. Do you remember how Democrats blasted Bush for not admitting a mistake? Does anybody think that Democrats will blast Obama for the same? (Article here)
Onto other news:
"The White House maintained Monday [yesterday] that nothing had changed [about North Korea]. When pressed by a reporter on whether Bush still believed that North Korea and Iran were part of the Axis of Evil, Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said they were."
Better add Russia and Venezuela to that axis of evil, for "President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia said that their countries would more closely coordinate their actions on global energy markets and work together on foreign policy." That's todays news! Russia also got an arms sales deal with Chavez. Lots of Russian weapons seem to be going to America's enemies. Hmm. (Article here)
Plus, get a load of this, a story that also appears in The Russia News Service:
"Russian media reported Monday [yesterday] the military is weighing whether to reinstate a Cold War practice of resuming bomber flights to Cuba or deploying them there in response to US plans to base missile defence in Eastern Europe."
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
The 2016 prediction for Armageddon (from my human intellect and therefore subject to retraction) is explained here.
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage, see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the
Table of Contents