Previous Update: July 10-13

Updates Index

July 14 - Present, 2008

Awaiting Results of Saber Rattling

July 14

Israeli Defence Minister (Ehud Barak) will not, after all, go to Washington today; the given reason is a new prisoner swap with Hezbolah, though I think the green light obtained from Bush this past weekend, for Israel to attack Iran, is also a green light for Israel to attack Hezbolah...should the need arise.

The new Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman, was the Bush pick for the new Lebanese government, Mrs. Rice said. Although he was a Hezbolah ally, and a pro-Syrian agent, he later conveyed neutraility in the pro-Syria/anti-Syria camps. He was the commander of the army when Hezbolah launched its recent military strike against the Lebanese government, but Suleiman kept his army on the sidelines, allowing Hezbolah to win and thereby to go on to obtain veto-power representation in a new government. Soon, Suleiman was made the new government's president.

As president he is also the commander-in-chief, and his first term is six years long. Apparently, if my timetable is correct, Suleiman will be the president and commander-in-chief during the prophetic invasion on Israel at the start of the 70th Week, but also on Jerusalem mid-way into the Week. And so it is important that, just yesterday, Suleiman declared: "Should diplomacy fail to return 'Israeli-occupied land' to Lebanon, the Lebanese army (LAF) will take it by force."

These are strong, unminced words. As Suleiman made the statement immediately after meeting with Syrian President Assad, and as the latter said, "any progress in future Israel-Lebanon negotiations would be made in coordination with Syria," it seems obvious that Lebanon is firmly in the grip of Syria and it's Hezbolah arm. Suleiman's statement means that Syria is prepared to make a petty attack against Israel over a non-issue in the Golan Heights. Why?

This is not the sort of talk one expects during peace negotiations. It suggests that the Israeli-Syria peace talks are at an abrupt end (though these talks have nine lives). Arabs probably won't dare invade Israel on a large scale until they are sure they have the numbers to be successful. Again and again it all dwindles down to the removal of American troops from the Middle East, for the Arabs know that, should they launch a united invasion now, the American military in Iraq could come snappily to Israel's defense.

Again and again, it all seems to be coming down to Barrack Obama, and how he'll alter the Middle East situation as it now stands. In fact, the Syrian President said two days ago that: "peace talks between [Israel and Syria] would progress only when a new U.S. president takes over the White House" (CNN). Obama will soon meet, this month, with the American military in Iraq, in what promises to make headlines the world over. His poll numbers depend on a successful foreign outing. The pressure is on as he walks a fine line between his campaign promises and what the Iraqi situation might need during his presidency.

Syria shouldn't necessarily rejoice if Obama is elected, for he may turn out to be Syria's worst nightmare. Assuming he's the False Prophet, might he not assist Gog in conquering Syria? If the Isaiah-10 invasion of Syria is an Obama-Gog partnership, then American troops in Iraq will likely assist Gog. I suppose that Obama could support Gog's invasion into Syria without U.S. military, but read what Obama said on CNN yesterday: "Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the [Iraqi] field entirely. What I've said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq. I've talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq..."

He's now saying that he will not have "permanent" bases in Iraq, which means that he intends to have Iraqi bases (had he said this while running agianst Hillary, he might have lost to her). When he says "residual forces," how big or small does he intend them to be? He said the number of residual forces depends on "conditions on the ground" when he becomes president, and he threw in the phrase, "temporary missions," in an attempt to appease those voters who earlier heard him maintain a fast-and-total withdrawal, no ifs or buts about it.

So, his new position today is that he intends to fight al-Qaeda on, and if 100,000 troops or more are needed, I suppose he will keep them in the Middle East temporarily. How is this different than Bush or McCain? He falsified himself further yesterday by claiming his present position to have been his position all along during his struggle with Hillary. Yes, I believe that his position was always to end the war, but also to keep the troops in Iraq longer if they are needed; the problem is, he didn't confess this to his voters previously...wherefore he's trying to re-shape himelf now. If he designed his individual words or phrases to mean one thing during the struggle with Hillary, and to mean another thing for taking Office, then truly he is a first-degree (= contemplative) deceiver. This seems to be his most typical trait, to deceive his own voters. And if he'll deceive them, he'll decieve anyone.

He said: "I have been very careful not to put numbers on what a residual force would look like." That's an open-ended residual force, Mr. Obama, and it means that your 16-month timetable is on the line because of it. He can't have "16-month withdrawal" on the one hand, and "it depends on conditions of the ground" on the other hand. For now he wants his voters to believe that he'll pull 90 percent over 16 months, but when he's president he'll want the option of leaving up to 90 percent in Iraq as the residual force. Democrats demanded a timetable for withdrawal from Bush, and now Obama can't give them one.

In an effort to make a distinction with his "temporary" bases in Iraq, he diabolically argues that both Bush and Mccain want "permanent" Iraqi bases (which of course is untrue). It's a Democrat sham to make the truth up as one goes along, and reinforce it by simultaneously taking a cheap shot at Bush. This typical Democratic attitude explains why he said (yesterday): "Now, the last point I would make on this is, this is going to be a messy affair. There's no elegant and easy solutions to what I believe has been an enormous strategic blunder by this [Bush] administration." In other words, "I have to keep the troops in Iraq because Bush made a huge mess in sending them there, and it's my job to get my hands dirty to try to clean it up."

Let's face it, the things he's saying now reveal Obama's willingness to be a military president. The question is: where in the Middle East will Obama re-deploy some of the troops? He previously said that he wants to go into Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda. Bush was intelligent enough not to put all his marbles into that wide open shooting gallery, where all of al-Qaeda could slip out of the country in less time than it takes to deploy one American brigade, and for a lot less money. Bush decided that it was more effective to let al-Qaeda come to him, and I think he was correct. Yesterday, Obama did another flip-flop by saying it's a bad idea all around to go into Afghanistan (apparently, some of his fellow Democrats talked some sense into him). If Bush goes there now, it's only because Iraq has shown him the boot.

An article in the Jerusalem Post today is entitled: "Israel concerned Hizbullah will attack after prisoner swap." It goes on to say that discussions with Lebanese journalists and Hezbolah operatives revealed an imminent attack. I think this is why Israeli Defence wanted to meet with Washington today. As this Syrio-Lebanese threat coincides with Israel's willingness to stike inside Iran, perhaps a time-consumimg conflict is being urged by Iran because it needs just a few more months to get to a certain point in its bomb building. Israel? Israel? Are you there? Do you read me? It's a diversion.

Just in, later in the day, is that Syrian president Assad has come out to warn the United States not to "stir" Israel to strike Iran. This is a clever political move blaming the United States for an Israeli strike so as to justify the dire global consequences promised by Iran, and moreover it implies Syria's partaking in those consequences. Perhaps the threat of war from the Syrio-Lebanese front is just that, and perhaps the reports of imminent war from the Hezbolah front are just related tactics to curb any Israeli decision to strike Iran. One easily sees in all this a Syrian-Iranian alliance, and who knows but that Syria has agreed to be the "delivery man" of Iran's nuclear bombs to Hezbolah. The latter has had plenty of missile practice recently, has it not? Israel does not yet fear much because Hezbolah's rockets do little damage, usually missing "important" targets, but even small nuclear blasts from several rockets would shake the nation to the bones.

I don't know if nuclear weapons will ever be used on Israel prior to Armageddon, but the West shouldn't take the chances on Israel's behalf, asking Israel to be patient through sham peace processes used by enemies to secure time for re-arming. If I were the leader of Israel now, I would sacrifice economic ties with the West, start a government program to honor both God and His Son from the national media, and wipe Hezbolah away completely in spite of denunciations from Syria, Iran, or the West. Unfortunate for Israel is that its God will not allow Israel to wipe surrounding enemies away until after His great-tribulation project, at which time the weeping Israelites will finally accept "the One they have pierced" (Zechariah 12:10). Syria? Syria? Are you there? Don't touch the apple of God's eye while He's in inner turmoil over His wayward people.

By the way, there is not any chance on the horizon for the re-building of the Jerusalem temple on the Holy Site. Most prophecy writers teach that the anti-Christ cannot invade Jerusalem until the temple is re-built, which is one reason that the 2009-16 timetable for the 70th Week won't be regarded as accurate by mainline prophecy land (until they see it differently). If this subject interests you, see my chapter, No New Jerusalem Temple Needed.

The Herald Tribune has published an article written by Barrack Obama today, and it spells out his Mid-East plan on paper. He is emphasizing that he wants to end the Iraq war (so does Bush and McCain), that he wants Iraqis to take over their own security (Bush and McCain want the same), that he wants to go into Afghanistan with extra troops (Bush has suggested the same), and that Bush and McCain are knuckleheads compared to himself. He said: "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now." Did you catch that? He said "redeploy our combat brigaes," but didn't specify where. One doesn't use "redeploy" if he means to bring them home to the United States, does he? Remember, this is in writing so that every word he used in the article was allow later what he truly wants to do. The sentence, as fashioned, allows him to redeploy the entire Iraqy army.

Libyan leader weighs in on Obama today, and says he should be proud of his Muslim identity. It seems that all the nations at enmity with Israel, and/or those listed with Gog in Ezekiel 38, love Obama. Remember Obama's wife, who revealed that she wasn't much in love with America.

I just learned that Obama is visiting the Palestinians in a couple of weeks: "Palestinian Authority officials on Monday welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plans to visit Ramallah next week, saying they would brief him on the situation in the PA territories and the status of peace talks with Israel." If you don't know, Obama's church in Chicago -- yes the one surrounded in controversies -- supported Palestinian groups and issues, and perhaps still does. Ramallah is about 10 miles north of Jerusalem. Palestinians are not happy with what Obama said recently, that he wants all of Jerusalem to be an Israeli domain because he doesn't believe that dividing the city is a good idea. Will he back-track, especially after the election?

July 15

Obama has already started back-tracking, when on CNN the other day. He was asked concerning the "statement you made in a recent speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel." Obama responded:

"You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given."

It doesn't matter what he said after that, this is the ultimate flip-flop, because when someone says in front of a Jewish audience that he's for the "undivided capital of Jerusalem," there's no way to mistaken what is meant or to justify saying, the next month, "we had some poor phrasing." This man's depraved to the point of being the raw, stereo-typical politician. Mr. Obama walked into a room full of Jews and told them what he knew to be a bold-faced lie, exactly what they wanted to hear, because at the time his entire election bid depended on coming across pro-Israel. That need will no longer apply after he's elected, especially if and when he's elected the second time, in 2012 (just in time for the Jerusalem invasion that's in the spring of 2013 on my current timetable). You just watch the Democrats elect him in spite of his duplicity, because the only thing that matters to them is having the reins of power.

God has always made the allies of Jews stab them in the back, and it can be no different when their allies are the ungodly Democrats. God has always destroyed, crippled, or shamed the ungodly allies of the ungodly Jews. In these days, YHWH is providing ample time for the ungodly Jews to repent. The Day of the LORD is all about calling Israelites to repentance, but they are more interested in good times. As the cloud over Israel darkens, the Israelites will continue to obsess in good times. Let's eat and be merry, says Isaiah, will be their attuitude as the horrible destruction of their country draws near.

In articles out today, a very dangerous situation is emphasized on the Afghan front:

"Afghan lawmakers [of the American-backed government] have directly accused Pakistan's intelligence agency of involvement in a string of deadly attacks in Afghanistan.

The legislators referred to Pakistan as 'the largest center for breeding and exporting terrorism.'

...Afghanistan regularly accuses Pakistan's intelligence service -- which once had strong ties with the Taliban -- of orchestrating attacks inside its borders.'"

Assuming that the Afghan government isn't merely picking a fight with Pakistan when making these charges, the statement is dire because Pakistan has nuclear weapons that al-Qaeda wishes to secure. We know already that Pakistan presently won't allow Americans on it's soil to seek out bin-Laden or other terrorists, and perhaps it's because Pakistan has decided to side with terrorists. This is definitely a story to watch.

The president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, opposed the Taliban and al-Qaeda. However, he lost military power recently, as well as the trust of his nation's people, and the world has been waiting to see what the outcome would be in regards to the terrorist situation, especially as Pakistani Intelligence had been accused by some of funding the 9/11 plotters (before 9/11). During the period (ended 2007) that Musharraf held a superficial alliance with Bush, everything on every front seemed to serve the blocking of terrorist goals, but things are now changing on every front, as though the Appointed Time is drawing near.

Consider this if you haven't yet heard: "The architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has been under house arrest since 2004 after he confessed to leaking nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea." It seems likely that Iran has been building the bomb according to Khan's formula, and that an exchange of technology between Iran, Syria and North Korea has been going on for some years. This development is contributing much to an Armageddon scenario.

The point is, Obama's current admission that he'll go into Afghanistan with resolve means that he'll likely be caught up in a war with Pakistani Intelligence as his enemy, as well as Iran. Morerover, Musharraf has stabbed Bush in the back so that he too might become Obama's enemy. Perhaps Obama already knows that the 10,000 troops he has already allocated for Afghanistan will be an insufficient number, but he isn't telling his voters just yet. I think Obama has a lot of thinking to do before he tackles Afghanistan, and we could see him scrap the idea. Then again, he may have less of a choice if Bush sends a significant number of Iraq's troops to Afghanistan to start the wheels of another war effort.

Last I heard about al-Qaeda in Mosul is that it had retreated to the south of Mosul. The particular region making news south of Mosul is Dayala province, and today a terrible report came out:

"Two suicide bombers blew themselves up in a crowd of army recruits Tuesday in an Iraqi province where devastating attacks persist despite security improvements in the rest of the country. At least 28 people died...The bombings came ahead of what Iraqi military officials have described as an imminent offensive in troubled Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad."

The article also says: "Violence also flared in the northern city of Mosul, where a dozen people died in bombings that targeted the Iraqi army and police on Tuesday, the US military said." Did anyone say that the situation in northern Iraq had subsided? Is the Iraqi government sure that it doesn't need American help?

All this talk about al-Qaeda, but this month the ex-Saddamites have spoken: "Saddam Hussein's former deputy [Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri] predicted that US troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2008, according to an audio recording broadcast Tuesday by the Dubai-based television network, Al-Arabiya." No explanation is given in this article for the asserted date of withdrawal. Maybe he knows something from the Iraqi government that Bush doesn't want to tell.

July 16

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was accepted as the leader of the Baath Party after Saddam's execution. At first (2004) he and his two sons were received by al-Qaeda's Zarqawi, and an alliance was formed in opposing Bush, but by 2006 al-Douri rejected Zarqawi's cruel and divisive tactics, and sought to win Iraq back by his own strategies. In mid-2007, al-Douri reportedly offered to betray al-Qaeda by joining the American cause; this was in conjunction with an attempt to enter the Iraqi political arena. It didn't work, and it might not have been sincere, for soon after (fall of 2007), 22 insurgent groups formed the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation, and appointed al-Douri as its leader. In his July (2008) audio tape, he said that he'll fight against the Americans until they leave Iraq.

I assume that al-Douri is the one who will join Gog in Mosul in fulfilling Daniel 11:23. I've read that al-Douri was in Mosul when Bush took Baghdad (2003):

"Just before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, al Douri was placed in charge of the north and was given personal command of the 5th Corps of the Republican Guard, the only Iraqi unit to survive the initial invasion with most of its personnel, equipment, and command and control intact. His unit formed the initial core of the Baathist insurgency..."

The webpage above and its links give many details on al-Douri's activities should you care to know. It suggests that al-Douri formed ties with al-Qaeda after reportedly denouncing it in August of 2007 (perhaps his denunciation was disinformation). Although October saw the forming of the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation with many Sunni groups that didn't include al-Qaeda (according to an online terrorist report), al-Douri's belongings and papers were found in December, explaining military strategies that included working with al-Qaeda. Some things reported on terrorist websites are intended as disinformation, but when personal papers are found, they are expected to expose the realities.

The website below specifically reports on Baathist ties to al-Qaeda, going back to the Saddam era. It accuses the major American media of what I accused, that they deceived the American public for political purposes in thumping Bush when they reported that Saddam didn't have meetings with al-Qaeda groups. These ties are important where Daniel 11:22-23 expose two groups both broken, and their subsequent rise -- i.e. resurgence -- together.

It comes as no surprise to me that Saddam, and recently the Baathists under al-Douri and others, have been supplying al-Qaeda with money to do their dirty work against America. Can Democrats understand why Saddam would want al-Qaeda to do his dirty work against America??? Can we understand that Muslim nations with borders -- nations who wish to crush the West -- will use the border-less rats of al-Qaeda? Can we understand that these nations will go to lengths to distance themselves from al-Qaeda even while they work with it? Note that al-Douri came out with dis-association from al-Qaeada when he was considering the seizue of Iraq via the Iraqi political avenue.

Many Baathists, a good number listed and briefly described in the webpage above, have been caught by coalition forces, but as al-Douri has evaded capture to this day, he just could be the man to make ties with Gog. Why is he so awaiting the Americans to leave Iraq? What plans does he have when they are gone? To enter Iraqi politics? Isn't Daniel's king of the north to sieze Iraq diplomatically? I'm not saying that al-Douri is the king of the north, but am suggesting that he (or a fellow Baathist) will see to it that the king of the north finds his way to the rulership position of Iraq. It is prophecy-important that al-Douri revealed the building of his own political machine last year, for this machine can be used to get Gog's foot in the door of Iraqi politics. I hope to form a good idea as to how Gog might seize Iraq under present conditions, but right I haven't a clue worth sharing.

There is no pertinent news thus far today. So another comment on Obama will have to do. When Democrats were crying that Bush was losing the war on terror up until last year -- i.e. when the Insurgents were strong -- they and Obama together were insisiting on pulling the military out of Iraq. Now Obama is saying that if things get worse in Iraq -- i.e. if the Insurgents get stronge(er) -- he'll need to leave the military there for as long as it takes for the Insurgency to become weakened. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't Obama being a hypocrite?

Obama then says that the war should be against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan simply because al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. But al-Qaeda is everywhere, and is especially in Iraq. Will he now pull the military just because it's the political expectation of his voters? No, never, for if he were to pull the military while al-Qaeda or al-Douri is yet strong, he would go down in infamy after the Insurgents rise up and undo all that was done. Therefore, he is trying to phrase himself these days in such a way as to be able to continue the war, if need be, even though he is opposed to the war if Bush is in charge of it. As the election gets closer, Obama will need to choose his words with even more care simply because he's not being honest with his voters. What he should say is: "I've been a fool to tell you that I'll pull the military immediately at this critical stage. I'll pull them out when it's safe to do so, period."

The reality may be that God wants them out at the Appointed Time, and whatever politicians have to say about the controversy will then be irrelevant.

With no news today I went searching for bin-Laden ties to Russia, and found a doozie article that accuses Russian intelligence of forming al-Qaeda in the first place. It tells that, while in the custody of Russia, Ayman al-Zawahiri (the important Egyptian terrorist I introduced earlier) spent months with Russian Intelligence and, it is assumed by the article's author, was primed into becoming a leader of an anti-American movement:

"Freed from Russian jail in May 1997, Dr. Zawahri found refuge in Afghanistan, yoking his fortunes to Mr. bin Laden. [Zawahiri's group] Egyptian Jihad, previously devoted to the narrow purpose of toppling secular rule in Egypt, became instead the biggest component of al Qaeda and a major agent of a global war against America."

In other words (though he's still assuming here), he agreed to start an anti-American movement with Russia as his back up, and this led to his meeting with bin-Laden, who by the sounds of it was already on-board Russia's anti-American plan. More simply put, al-Qaeda was a Russian-backed creation, and Putin, because he was involved with the KGB, knows it. The article convinces me more that Russia was supplying arms to Afghanistan:

"It is notable that Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan received regular re-supplies of Russian arms. The man responsible for these deliveries was Victor Anatolievich Bout, the son of a top KGB officer. His father's connections helped establish Bout in the arms trade, which is linked to the Russian government and particularly to its intelligence services."

The quote is matter-of-factly, and the author (Evgenii Noviko) appears to know. I have no doubt that Bush also knows...that Putin is a part of the "axis of evil." I have always believed that Bush's main goal was to become a monkey wrench in the Russo-Saddam machinery, and it makes absolute sense that al-Qaeda was being drawn into that machinery...and that Bush also knew that part. I predict that Obama is about to inherit everything that Bush knows, but that Obama will make the wrong decisions in dealing with the Russo-Qaeda machine.

The above author has a few other online articles, and the one below explains that Russia had secretly conducted meetings (from 1970s-90s) with "Palestinian terror groups and Iraqi Baathists" for the purpose of learning Communist totalitarian methods. In other words, Russia was the tutor of the Iraqi Baath Party, even before Saddam became the Iraqi leader, and as a result Iraq became a Communist-style dictatorship. This well explains why Russia and Saddam were close. As there had been open talk (in the secret meetings) and raport between Russia and Iraq concerning the abuse of citizens, killings of the state's political enemies, robbing the citizens, over-spending on military, etc. (can't get much more dragonic that that), I expect that Baathists have been in touch with Russia from the start of the Bush war. What have they been up to? Surely they have been plotting an over-turning of Iraq.

July 17

The position on American withdrawal, of an Iraqi general and therefore possibly the majority of the army, came out today in the Herald Tribune. The article reports on a special effort made by the Tribune in gauging the feelings of various Iraqi peoples regarding a withdrawal and what it should look like. It found that most Iraqis want it, but not all want it as immediate as Obama has promised his voters:

"'Everyone in Iraq likes [Obama]' said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. 'I like him. He's young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president.'" But mention Obama's plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.

'Very difficult,' he said, shaking his head. 'Any army [i.e. the Iraqi army] would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don't have that ability.'

...'He seems like a nice guy,' Ibrahim [an Iraqi businessman] said. But he hoped that Obama's statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk."

The question is not so much what the Iraqi military and citizens want, but what the Iraqi government wants. The Insurgency has worked to make the American presence the sole problem, and other Muslim countries are weighing in on the government's final decision. However, the Iraqi leaders cannot be blind to the desire of certain Shiites and Sunnis both wanting to seize the government. I found a Reuters article (just days old) on the government's position, concluding: "This suggests the specifics of any troop withdrawal timetable are far from being decided within Iraq's government."

Consider whether the American Democrats have anything to do with Iraq's recent timetable requirement: "Last year [2007], when Democrats in Congress tried to lock in a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq... Hmm, could Iraq be desirous of an Obama win this November?

A majority of Iraqi legislators signed a draft bill for a timetable of withdrawal back in May of 2007 that seemed to be an accomodation for the American Democrats, but that was before the forthcoming victories over the Insurgents as per the troop surge. It's even possible that Obama's 16-month withdrawal was born in the Iraqi government. The Washington Post reported (May 10, 2007): "The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded..."

Muqtada al-Sadr, a strong leader of Iraqi Shiites who wants to rule Iraq, has praised the timetable for withdrawal, and of course the other candidate for seizing Iraqi, al-Douri, must also be praising it. How are these two men, therefore, pushing the buttons of the current Iraqi government? Are they trying to make the Iraqi government believe that they would be nice-guy supporters of the government after the Americans leave (though secretly they hope to seize the Iraqi "threone")? There is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly al-Sadr's strategy.

The question still is, why has al-Douri predicted that the Americans would be out of Iraq by the end of 2008? Does he know that Iraq is planning to capitulate any on-the-table deal with the United States, for one excuse or another, so that the Americans will have no legal right to remain after 2008? That's what it sounds and looks like. Perhaps the invitation (by an Iraqi spokesmen) to stay until 2011 was just political gesture, knowing that, without a formal deal, Americans can't stay into 2009.

Back in 2006, al-Maliki (Iraqi prime minister) said that Iraq will be capable of handling its own in 18 months i.e. by the start of 2008. This, more than anything else, should be the reason for Iraq's current expose of the boot to Bush. However, I think that, after a good hard look, the Iraqis could make a deal with Bush, although they would likely coordinate it as per an Obama/Democrat strategy for withdrawal...meaning that they'd want to talk with Obama before making a Bush deal. Obama is soon to visit Iraq, but he has so deeply dug in his 16-month withdrawal scheme that he'll likely press the Iraqis for a similar timetable. If he gets a timetable that's less than 16 months, he'll say the Iraqis made me do it. If he gets a timetable that's more than 16 months, he'll say the Iraqis made me do it. But look at who called for a timetable as far back as 2005:

"Putin, speaking on 18 August [2005] in Sochi, called for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, saying they are considered 'occupying forces' by many Iraqis. He also called for an international conference on Iraq by the end of the year."

One can sense the urgency in Putin here, as he wanted to know just when, and just how fast, the Americans would be getting out. As much more time has passed since then, the Russians must be like a coiled spring set to unleash suddenly and with power when the Americans finally do leave.

McCain is crying foul, portraying Obama is a wreckless politician an inch from total victory and yet willing to see it all go down the tubes. McCain is also implying that Obama wants to see the Iraq situation fail because Obama voted against the troop surge. Can anyone (who's not a demented Democrat) understand why Democrats don't want an Iraqi victory? Democrats have been basing their White House bid on a dismal defeat in Iraq...but suddenly the responsibility for the fall of Iraq appears to be coming round onto the Democratic table. Under the Bush presidency, a total Iraqi victory has begun to bloom, as Bush promised, and under the Obama presidency the seeds of a dismal failure appear to be prepared in the cultivation stage as we speak. Will Obama actually plant those seeds?

This just out in the Washington Times:

"The nation's top military officer [Adm. Michael G. Mullen] Wednesday declared the security situation in Iraq 'remarkably better,' so good in fact that he expects to recommend more U.S. troop reductions this fall if conditions hold.

...The administration now reports that violence in Iraq has plummeted from 1,400 incidents a week to fewer than 400 nationwide."

How easy would it be for the Insurgents to scale down their attacks even further to hasten a withdrawal? Foolish Obama. Will he take the bait? In an article on the topic, Aljazeera writes: "Officials said the remaining eight provinces could be under Iraqi control by December." Which officials said this? The Americans or Iraqis? The statement is in view of 10 out of 18 provinces already under Iraqi control. Which officials know that all 18 could be under Iraqi contol by the end of 2008???

The Assyrian International News Agency gives the same report today, only better: "Iraq hopes to have control over security across the country by the end of the year, national security advisor Mowaffak Rubaie said Wednesday...'We will be very joyous when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq,' Rubaie said..."

The prisoner swap between Israel and Hezbolah occured yesterday without a hitch, and now we are waIting for the post-swap war indicated by some earlier in the week. What happened to all that saber rattling? Gone, just because of the high-level talks between the West and Iran about be take place. Therefore, Hezbolah's invasion of Israel, which is now also Lebanon's invasion, will likely be held off in the short-term by Iran. To support my belief that the time at hand is different than any other in the past between Israel and its enemies, we have this out in tomorrow's Daily Star, Lebanon:

"Seventy days ago, when Lebanon was in the midst some [sic] of its darkest days in recent history, few Lebanese citizens would have imagined that the political climate in Lebanon would be transformed into the love-fest that it is today - and even fewer are convinced that the transformation will last."

The article goes on to share some of the past rivalry situations of Lebanon...that drastically weakened Hezbolah's war against Israel. Now that opposing sides in Lebanon are joined and talking, and moreover now that they're seeing progress many-fold better than before, we might see a tenacious alliance continue until war with Israel becomes sustainable. I'm suggesting that this is from God to open the door to Israel's great tribulation.

I can predict that the U.S. and Europe will frown on Iran after this month's talks, that insults from both sides will once again resume, and that Iran will buy some valuable time needed to stave off a military crunch from Bush. In order to buy that time, it's important that Hezbolah not invade Israel and rock the boat. However, there should be small-scale skirmishes on Israel's northern border for the betterment of Hezbolah's positioning once the war begins.

Again, it's not likely that this war will begin as long as Bush has his military in the Middle East. I've been waiting years for the Americans to leave Iraq, and now that it's about to take place, I'm expecting various situations to coincide with it that lead to the great tribulation, one situation being an opening door in northern Israel for rabid enemies to pour through.

A few hours after writing the above, I came in and found the following article entered near the end of the day in Jerusalem: "Hizbullah is bolstering its presence in south Lebanon villages with non-Shi'ite majorities by buying land and using it to build military positions and store missiles and launchers, The Jerusalem Post has learned." The reasoning here is that UN peace keepers in southern Lebanon are forbidden to enter villages. "'Hizbullah is moving into every town that it can,' a senior defense official told the Post. 'This is in order to evade UNIFIL detection.'"

The Debka File adds this in tomorrow's news (today in North America): "Our exclusive sources report that Lebanon’s pro-Western Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri resorted to the unheard-of step of a secret visit to the Iraqi town of Najef to seek the help of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He was desperate to check the Hizballah leader, Hassan Nasrallah’s meteoric rise to power in Beirut." I believe that Hariri has 16 seats in the Lebanese government, as compared to Hezbolah's 11 (one third is required for veto power, and Hezbolah has it). Syria was implicated in the assassination attempt on Hariri a few years ago, but he lives on as an impediment to Hezbolah.


Updates Index

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