2006 elections. The Democrats won the House with about a 30-vote margin (probably a much bigger blowout, but with Diebold & co. we will never know), and achieved 50/50 in the Senate (only 1/3 of which was up for reelection). Polls showed that the Iraq War was THE most important issue to U.S. voters--70% wanted it ended. Pelosi immediately announced--the very next day, if I recall--apropos of nothing, that, "Impeachment is off the table" (I mean, WHAT table?). Rumsfeld resigned shortly afterward, and it seemed for all the world like the reason he resigned was the Congressional elections and the Democrats taking over the House and having a committee-chair majority in the Senate--and a mandate from the people to end the Iraq War. Although Pelosi had dashed hopes that a Democratic House would begin impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney for multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," expectations were high that the House would do something about the war--such as deny Bush/Cheney any more funding for it.
One other thing that occurred in that whirlwind 3-week period between the 2006 elections and Rumsfeld's resignation: a 'Gulf of Tonkin' type incident occurred, with Iran catching a British boat in Iranian waters and arresting the British sailors. It is just the sort of thing that starts wars, and it looked very much like a deliberate provocation by the British. A U.S. attack on Iran seemed imminent. And, in the midst of this--just after the elections and taking the gavel in the House--Pelosi heads for the Middle East, visits Syria (wears a veil! walks in a marketplace), visits Israel (gives them multiple assurances), and--lo and behold--the Iranians GRACIOUSLY give the British sailors back, unharmed.
Then, within a few months, the new 'Democratic' Congress not only makes no move to end the Iraq War, they ESCALATE the war and lard Bush/Cheney with billions MORE of our non-existent tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis until they sign the oil contracts, and--we have now learned--until they sign agreements for permanent and very substantial U.S. bases in Iraq, AND for attacking other countries FROM Iraq, without Iraqi permission. (In short, no sovereignty for Iraq--continued occupation.) The new 'Democratic' Congress seemed to be saying, "Fuck you!" to the American people, just like the Bushites.
What are we to make of this sequence of events?
Rumsfeld resigns, with NO CHANGE OF POLICY IN IRAQ. Why did he resign?
Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"--an astonishing statement that violates the Constitution, and that makes no sense. Why did she say it? (WHAT "table"?)
And what was all that business with captured British sailors, and Pelosi hopping around the Middle East IN THE MIDST OF that most serious crisis with Iran?
Here's one theory: Pelosi (and others? some group of insiders, probably including military and intelligence people) decided that attacking Iran is insane, and set about preventing it. They made a deal with Bush/Cheney--probably some weeks before the elections, when it became evident that the Democrats were going to take over Congress, as follows: You don't attack Iran, and we won't impeach you--and maybe also--you will leave the White House peacefully, when the time comes, and we won't impeach you. Bush/Cheney agreed. Rumsfeld didn't--so he abruptly resigned. It was not about Iraq; it was all about
Iran. (The whole point of the Project for a New American Century--the NeoCon/Rumsfeld plan--was to invade Iran and take over its oil fields.*)
And that brings us to today. Everything that has happened since has been a see-saw of calculations--Bush/Cheney judging whether Congress actually has the cajones to impeach and/or sufficient evidence to overcome Republicrat fascism (love of torture, war, gov't spying and repression)--can they still attack Iran with impunity?; and Pelosi and "white hat" cabal trying to judge at what point they need to seriously threaten impeachment--to prevent an attack on Iran, and to insure that Bush/Cheney will leave the White House in Jan. 09.
The main incidents of that Election 2006 period--"impeachment is off the table," Rumsfeld resigning (with no change of policy in Iraq), the British sailors/Iran incident (set up by Rumsfeld?) and Pelosi's trip to the Middle East --begin to make sense, if you posit this behind-the-scenes deal with Bush/Cheney.
-----------------------
Some thoughts on Rumsfeld:
*There may be other reasons why Rumsfeld resigned. The recent evidence of his complicity in torture may be one of them--or other heinous crimes that came to light behind the scenes. I've always thought he was the mastermind behind the Plame leak, and that the conflict between the CIA and Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans" had to do with a Rumsfeld attempt to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be 'found' by the U.S. troops who were 'hunting' for them, after the invasion--and that Rumsfeld was the main perp not only as to treasonous outings of a whole network of counter-proliferation CIA agents/contacts, but also murders--including the murder of David Kelly in England--as Rumsfeld sought to silence and punish those whom he suspected of foiling that plan. The 'discovery' of WMDs in Iraq was to be the triumphant moment of the war, justifying the slaughter of over a million people and other heinous acts. Who foiled it? They weren't sure, so they outed everybody in the CIA counter-proliferation network (the Brewster-Jennings network), and murdered Kelly (who was "off the reservation" - already whistleblowing) because he knew about it and they couldn't control him.
I can't rule this out--that someone got the goods on Rumsfeld--on one or more of the many crimes he has committed--and pushed him out at that moment (with everything else being just a coincidence). But there is further evidence that Rumsfeld's main purpose has been conquest of Iran and getting control of their oil--and that, frustrated on this goal (by the impeachment threat against Bush/Cheney and the "deal"), he resigned. Rumsfeld has now become interested in South America, and I believe that he is orchestrating a Bushite war plan to split off the oil-rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, into fascist mini-states in control of the oil. The Bushites have failed to topple Hugo Chavez, and can't win elections anywhere on the continent, as country after country has elected leftist governments, into social justice and self-determination, who are IN SYMPATHY with the Bolivarian Revolution, and are benefiting from it in many ways.
So, frustrated in his goal of grabbing Iran's oil for his puppetmasters in the oil industry, he is now bringing to fruition a long-planned Bushite scheme to instigate civil wars in these countries, and create chaos in the region, with the upshot being independent oil states, run by corrupt fascists, split off from the leftist national governments. There is considerable evidence that this plan is now IN MOTION, and could become a shooting war by mid-summer (with involvement of the newly reconstituted 4th Fleet--a nuclear fleet--which will be off the coast of Venezuela (and the Venezuelan oil state of Zulia) by July. In Bolivia, white separatists have already ILLEGALLY voted for secession in one gas/oil rich province--supported, funded, organized and probably armed by the Bush Junta, using our tax dollars (always). The fly in the ointment for the Bushites, in Bolivia, is that adjacent Paraguay just went leftist in its recent election, and the new leftist president wants the U.S. military out of his country. Both Bolivia and Paraguay are landlocked--so, how do the Bushites get U.S. troops into Bolivia to--as Rumsfeld urges in a Washington Post op-ed** of six months ago--take "swift action" in support of (Bushite) "friends and allies" in South America?
Read between the lines here:
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.htmlVenezuela and Ecuador are Rumsfeld's main targets (biggest oil reserves in the western hemisphere, both members of OPEC, both with democratic, leftist governments). You may have noticed the intensified level of psyops about Chavez, recently, and also about Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador--with Bush lapdog Alvaro Uribe in Colombia charging them with "supporting terrorists." Uribe ($5.5 BILLION in U.S./Bush military aid) tried to start a war with Ecuador/Venezuela this March. That failed (due to Chavez's peacemaking efforts, according to the president of Brazil). Though that war plan failed, the tensions in the region, costs (of military preparedness--to Venezuela, Ecuador others), and destabilization factors can't hurt the main plan: secession of the oil states.
Speaking of costs of military preparedness, at a recent South American summit, where UNASUR was formed (foundation of a South American "common market"), Brazil proposed a South American common defense. Neither thing--a "common market" or a
common defense--will include the U.S.