Military Rebellion

Going into August, 2003, on July 11, 2003 the Zetas warned that the US Military was rebelling, no longer considering Bush their Commander-in-Chief. They stated on Oct 11, 2003 that the nuclear football had been taken away from Bush, and thus the long faces at Crawford that month. On Nov 18, 2004, it was clear Bush was attempting to appoint members of the Navy, whom the Zetas said had remained loyal to Bush, to key positions. The Zetas also consistently stated that an invasion or bombing of Iran was not going to happen, regardless of any order issued by Bush.

The US Military has lost respect, utterly, for the Commander in Chief. The military was reluctant to go into Iraq, its advice ignored and its leadership treated like robots expected to follow orders without question. Rebellion, at the highest levels, is seething just under the surface.

ZetaTalk: Changing Captains, written July 11, 2003

 

Given the decision and actions taken last August by the US Military to supplant the White House as Commander in Chief with their own internal leadership, how should the meeting of NATO commanders for supposed war games be viewed?

ZetaTalk: Not Politics, written Oct 11, 2003

 

The US Military has been a sham, publicly, since August, 2003 when the football, the briefcase of nuclear codes, was taken from Bush, deemed a highly unstable megalomaniac as the War in Iraq demonstrated. The Navy, long at the heart of the Planet X cover-up in its position as timekeeper of the world and with tentacles into observatories worldwide, setting Sun and Moon times, and even controlling USGS and quake information before it is disseminated, allied with Bush. It was rumored at that time that prosecution or impeachment of Bush might occur, but this was deemed an impossible path given the Republican Congress and friends on the Supreme Court.

ZetaTalk: Military Shuffle, written Nov 18, 2004

 

Although this is in the hands of man and man has free will, and thus any predictions must be predicated on this, we predict that Bush will not succeed in invading or bombing Iran, though orders may be given to the military to do so.

ZetaTalk: Iran Boondoggle, written Mar 17, 2006

As the active military is not allowed to speak out publically against the Commander-in-Chief, little was heard of what was going on behind the scene, though there were plenty of inuendoes from retired military in 2006. But by May 13, 2007 this rebellion was breaking out into the public view, active duty military confronting the Commander-in-Chief.

Tucker: Active-Duty Generals Will 'Revolt' Against Bush If He Maintains Escalation Into 2008
May 13, 2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/13/generals-revolt

Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into 08." Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Batiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the president's strategy in Iraq.

 

CENTCOM Commander's Veto Sank Bush's Threatening Gulf Buildup
May 15, 2007
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/

Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking. Fallon's resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration's Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon's resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran. The plan to add a third carrier strike group in the Gulf had been a key element in a broader strategy discussed at high levels to intimidate Iran by a series of military moves suggesting preparations for a military strike. Admiral Fallon's resistance to a further buildup of naval striking power in the Gulf apparently took the Bush administration by surprise. Bush administration officials had just leaked to CBS News and the New York Times in December that the USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships would be sent to the Gulf in January six weeks earlier than originally planned in order to overlap with the USS Eisenhower and to "send a message to Tehran". But that was not the end of the signaling to Iran by naval deployment planned by administration officials. The plan was for the USS Nimitz and its associated vessels, scheduled to sail into the Gulf in early April, to overlap with the other two carrier strike groups for a period of months, so that all three would be in the Gulf simultaneously. Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."