link to Home Page

ZetaTalk: Decapitation Process
written Aug 19, 2005

I am concerned about all the reports about military coup happening. 4-Star General gets canned. Is there really a war going on behind the scenes between the Bush crowd and the powers that be? I am trying to figure out all the gossip about a military coup. Where are we headed? And what is behind the exorbitant crude oil prices? Any Zetas comments on this?

We stated when Bush stole the 2004 election that the Puppet Master was furious, as he had wanted a respected Viet Nam vet, John Kerry, to bring a rebelling US military into line, a situation that certainly would not occur with Bush continuing in office. Why does the Puppet Master care? Because the US Military has and is being used to protect his assets and interests, at home and abroad. The massive US Military, equal in size to the combined military of all other countries in the world, has bases everywhere, and the man with the gun gets cooperation with US interests abroad. Chosen as much for their weaknesses as for any skill or political savvy they may posses, Puppets are expected to allow their strings to be pulled, once installed into office, but Bush and those around him had let the power of the US Military go to their heads. They would be king. They would commandeer all the oil fields in the world, and control what they foresee as the prime commodity in the Aftertime, black gold.

Bush busting promptly began, the first volley financial. Despite all lies to the contrary, the health of the US economy is plunging, more layoffs, more bankruptcies, overinflated and underfunded and utterly dependent upon investors from abroad. What has the situation been since the 2004 election was stolen? Rising interest rates at the Federal Reserve, which the Puppet Master controls, while the US economy plunges. Logical only when one considers that the Puppet Master plans to decapitate the US bureaucracy, and plunging the US government into a financial crisis with a sudden withdrawal of funds from the Fed and from countries abroad which he has great influence with, will be one weapon at his disposal. Bush, meanwhile, having formerly been an alcoholic, is now drunk on continued spending sprees, his foray into Iraq a hemorrhage he refuses to address. Weapon one - financial disaster, with the US Congress frantically looking to cut expenses in the face of the Bush Administration's adamant insistence that their conquest of oil fields continue, and now into Iran.

The second Bush busting volley is unveiling political corruption within the Bush Administration. Shall we count the ways this has emerged? The Downing Street memo, demonstrating clearly that Bush lied to the public about his plans to invade Iraq; the Valerie Plame outing, which has Karl Rove and the office of Dick Cheney front and center and is currently before a grand jury; war profiteering via Haliburton, with contracts skipping the bidding process and fraudulent invoices being rewarded with bonuses. Where this is not yet seen as removing Bush from office, it has an eroding effect on the Congress and the public. Little by little the fingers of loyalty weaken and let go. Where the public stance is loyalty to a President that had been sworn in, in front of a Congress that failed to challenge the 2004 election, the depth of this loyalty is now paper thin. Election fraud, via Diebolt voting machines that had votes for 1/3 of the nation recorded without a paper trail and the central tabulating machines admittedly editable from a laptop in a parking lot nearby - all ignored by the loyal Republican Congress. With the 2006 elections approaching in the Fall of 2005, should a Congressman worry? Weapon two - the changing face of Congress.

The third Bush busting volley is eroding public sentiment for what Bush had hoped would be a war time Presidency. What war? The one that was waged based on a lie? The one that was for any reason but to defend America from terrorism? The one that was to make America free from worry, a safer place? For public sentiment to erode, the media must cooperate, and anyone taking the pulse of the media lately must admit there has been a change. Look behind the newscasters to see the hand at the helm of the major media outlets. It is not Bush and company. Though they can suppress reports by asserting a national security rational, they cannot dictate the tenor and tone of the news. Where the Downing Street memo received little press, Karl Rove was dragged about on major media endlessly for his alleged role in the Plame outing. Public exposes are not over in this battle for the hearts and minds of the US public, as more are in the wings and awaiting their time. The public has already decided they no longer approve of their President, not for his performance in Iraq, nor on the economy, and there is little left except respect for the Office of President to shore him up. Weapon three - an angry public.

What is the synergy, during a decapitation process, between economic quagmires, Congressional alarm, public disgruntlement, and the Military balking? Each magnifies the other. A war effort that has strong public support does not get challenged by Congress, regardless of legalities. A President viewed as genuinely concerned about the public interests is forgiven economic quagmires by the public. And when the argument is that national security is at stake, the safety of the American public at issue, then the media hesitates to criticize the leadership. But when this leadership has been exposed as utterly lacking in integrity, out for self profit, and breaking both the intent and letter of the law with aplomb, what then? When Congress begins to vote against the Bush White House wishes, what then? When the public polls show the support for the President and his policies diving for the bottom, what then? A feeding frenzy begins. Where this has terrified some within the Bush White House, the prevailing mode has been stubborn refusal to change. This is not the resolve of strength, but the rigidity of the weak. This is the 2 year old, having a tantrum, insisting on his way.

Enter the role of the military. They were, of course, disappointed to have as their assigned Commander-in-Chief a man who avoided his duty during the Viet Nam war to the extent of being AWOL in the reserves. The truth of this was not lost on the military, which has its own information channels, but the military is restrained from speaking out against a sitting Commander-in-Chief, so the truth of this is lost on the public. They did, of course, advise against invading Iraq, and were bitter when their advise was not taken. Follow this with a disastrous Rumsfeld plan to rush to Baghdad, leaving the supply routes vulnerable, and you have the setting we see today in Iraq, endless battles and endless dead and maimed soldiers. Moral is far worse than during Viet Nam, a story not allowed to be told. Where the military is based on command and control hierarchy, in theory following the Commander-in-Chief , there is a second tradition - rebellion by hapless blundering. Prison torture, carried out by mercenaries reporting directly to Rumsfeld, is revealed by military photos. Oops. This goes beyond information leaks, it affects deployment and cooperation, and if blundering does not suffice, then refusal begins.

Bush may think that firing a top general will set an example to the rest, and stop what has become increasingly an open rebellion in the military, but the opposite will be the effect. For every head cut off, more will grow. Bush sees the grim military faces, forced to attend his frequent pep talks to the public using them as backdrops, and imagines this cooperation. Has he not noticed the smiles fading? The lack of applause, even on orders? The word gets down to the lower echelons, that the officers no longer consider Bush their commander, and rebellion is afoot. This flashes about on the Internet as rumors of a coup, but this is not the result. The result is increasing refusal to follow direct orders. Up and down the line. Just how many court martials can the military entertain, simultaneously? Historically, when a military turns against a king, the king has lost his footing and is doomed. This is particularly so when the king foolishly starts attacking the military! But such is the arrogance of those in the White House at present, who think themselves impervious to corruption trials with an Attorney General long a close personal friend of Bush, and impervious to impeachment trials with a Republican House and Senate, and impervious to public and world opinion as the assignment of a hated UN envoy recently shows.

What next? A Shakespearean drama is about to unfold, with the synergy of undercutting of the Bush Administration creating a maelstrom under him that will astonish those who thought him strong. Bush busting, a decapitation of his influence such that the US is no longer run from the White House, but is on auto-pilot according to law and conscience. Such is the Puppet Masters plan, and there has not been a battle instigated by this Puppet Master than he has lost. The outcome is certain.

Signs of the Times #1488
Four-star general sacked [Aug 10] 'In an extraordinary move, the Army sacked a four-star general who was the subject of a Defense Department investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, an official said Tuesday. Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command, was approaching retirement when the decision to relieve him of duty was. Byrnes, 55, a Vietnam veteran, ranked third in seniority among the Army's 11 four-star generals. In his position as commander of Training and Doctrine Command, Byrnes oversaw all Army training programs and the development of war-fighting guidelines. Among the four-star general or flag officers to have been relieved of command in recent years was Navy Adm. Richard C. Macke, sacked as commander of Pacific Command in 1995 for remarks he made about the case of U.S. Marines accused of raping a 12-year-old Japanese girl. Gen. Michael Dugan was fired as chief of staff of the Air Force in 1990 for comments to reporters about planning for the 1991 Gulf War.