Additional Titles








The Leipzig

Sept. 11: Hold Government

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US

Why The 28-Page Gap?


More Cuddy










By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 20, 2006

In my March 26 column, "Order Out Of Chaos," I referred to the failed strategy of the Bush administration in Iraq. As an example of what the U.S. did wrong, we supported the writing of an Iraqi Constitution which mentioned a lot of freedoms, but within almost every provision had the phrase "except in accordance with law." This meant that all of their freedoms could be negated by Islamic religious law!

I also indicated in my March 26 column that despite all the failures, the Bush administration strategy regarding Iraq would not change, resulting in continued chaos. I was correct!

Now the Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress, but their surface mentality must end because they will be required to offer specific changes in policy.

Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin were on ABC television last week advocating a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, saying the Iraqis must be told we will not be there forever.

Sen. Biden suggested there be a confederation in Iraq with national guarantees to all Iraqis that oil revenues will be shared. There are serious problems with a confederation, though, as all Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are not separated in distinct areas. Thus, there would be considerable displacement as each sectarian minority could feel compelled to move to avoid discrimination or even persecution. Also, what if the majority Shiites say they do not want to share oil revenues? Suppose they believe that if violence breaks out because of such a decision, they militarily would prevail over the Sunnis, especially if joined by their Shiite allies in Iran.

To combat such a decision by the Shiites, the Sunnis might invite even more insurgents (e.g., Al-Qaeda) to help them militarily. Thus, there could actually be an increase in sectarian violence. Would the Democrats advocate the U.S. intervene in such a situation? If so, on whose side? And concerning the Kurds, their area of northern Iraq is now being used as a staging ground for Kurdish revolutionary incursions into Turkey. Suppose the Turks respond by militarily retaliating. Since Turkey is part of NATO, does NATO intervene with Democrat approval? If the Democrats are willing to send more U.S. troops under NATO into Iraq in the future, then why advocate pulling them out now? These are all questions the Democrats will have to answer.

The bottom line is that while the Bush policy has been a disaster, what the Democrats have thus far proposed could lead to even more chaotic violence and deaths in Iraq. In 2008, the Democrats could actually be blamed for causing the situation there to have become worse and for escalating greater international problems.

And what if the deteriorating situation in Iraq then causes terrorists to become even bolder as the U.S. draws down troop levels in Iraq? What if Iraq's increased destabilization threatens the international interests of Russia and China, and they decide to intervene? This could cause the U.S. to re-enter the picture whether the Democrats will like it or not.

All of this will unfold over the next 2 years, placing it at the forefront of the 2008 election. The Democrats will become increasingly divided over this failure (to improve the situation in Iraq) between the "peace at any price" types and those who want to succeed in order to be re-elected. The problem for the latter group is that the situation in Iraq isn't one that lends itself to typical non-military management, meaning economic incentives for all Iraqi parties to cooperate.

I mentioned many times before that the division in Iraq is sectarian in nature, as if Catholic law was imposed on Protestants (or vice versa) in this country. This means that without someone (e.g., the U.S., NATO, Russia or China) militarily imposing its will on the Iraqis, the sectarian violence will get worse because the majority Shiites have no threat against them great enough to force them to compromise with the minority Sunnis who oppressed the Shiites under Saddam Hussein for decades. In 2008, the Democrats will be blamed largely for the deteriorating situation there, as not only Iraq but the world (including the U.S.) will be even less safe than now.

It may be that the alternation of power Skull & Bones member William Whitney planned will be re-enacted in 2008 with Hillary Clinton elected president. But remember that Bill Clinton's mentor Prof. Carroll Quigley said this alternation should occur with nothing much really changing in terms of the globalist elite's goals.

There are those who say things will change when the American people wake up over their loss of sovereignty due to NAFTA or illegal immigration or the Security and Prosperity Partnership or whatever. However, they need to realize 2 things. First, the American public has been conditioned to tolerate almost anything as long as they are kept entertained (e.g., TV sports and soap operas, etc.).

They might bestir themselves if threatened in their own personal pocketbooks, but the globalists have rigged the system for that. Internationally, they have so enmeshed investments that to undo NAFTA, etc., would harm individuals' 401Ks, so any large number of potential protesters will back off.

In the U.S., they have given the local and state Democrat and Republican parties large donations to support candidates "acceptable" to them, so there's no real choice. If someone running for Congress tries to buck the system, the other "acceptable" politicians will see that he or she is buried in a committee he or she doesn't want and will have none of his or her legislation passed. Then at the next election, his or her opponent ("acceptable" to the globalists) will say how ineffective the system-bucker has been in getting federal funds, etc., for the district.

At some point, the economically self-absorbed and fun-craving voters will get tired of the system-bucker's "idealism" and elect another candidate "acceptable" to the globalists. Remember what Jeremiah 5:26,27,31 says: "For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men...their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich....The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

This is the U.S. today, unless the American people have a religious reawakening and SIMULTANEOUSLY throw out ALL bought politicians. Can this happen? Maybe, with the right crisis. But don't hold your breath, because we must remember that eventually there will be an Antichrist as Biblical prophecy will be fulfilled. Our responsibility is simply to do the best we can each day, for the final victory will be the Lord's.

� 2006 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available









In the U.S., they have given the local and state Democrat and Republican parties large donations to support candidates "acceptable" to them, so there's no real choice. If someone running for Congress tries to buck the system, the other "acceptable" politicians will see that he or she is buried in a committee...