Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Official Documents show 'war with Iraq' was planned before the 2000
Documents from a neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as
the Project for the New American Century, PNAC, clearly show that Bush
and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on
Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a
Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of
the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.”
A PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces
and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of
Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential
election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam
Hussein is in power or not.
Copy of the 90 Page Official Document
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States
has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the
Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military
bases in the region will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may
well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has.”
A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and
decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to
The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into "The World's
Sole Superpower" would require an increase in defense spending to “a
minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding
$15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long
one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
America ‘Pearl Harbored’
Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming
PNAC and the neocons: wanted a new Pearl Harbor - Google Video
3 min 31 sec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#Related_Operation_Mongoose_proposals Operation mongoose
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It
by Rep. Ron Paul
This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It's nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.
Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?
Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century – and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.
It's important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.
The catch-all phrase, "War on Terrorism," in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It's deliberately vague and nondefinable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don't forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.
Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess – implying the implausible that if we stay it won't be a mess.
Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We've had enough of both!
Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.
There's no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it's sound today.
We shouldn't wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.
We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
The World Can Halt Bush’s Crimes By Dumping the Dollar
By Paul Craig Roberts
February 11, 2007
What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy sites?
At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack. [VIDEO: The Dangers of a Nuclear War, Global Research, July 28, 2006]
Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.
Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons—as some of Bush’s criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate—the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.
Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.
Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the Iraqi population from the US military’s current use of depleted uranium in explosive ammunition used in Iraq. Caldicott explained that "depleted" does not mean depleted of radiation. She explained that each time such ammunition is used, radioactive particles are released in the air and are absorbed into people’s lungs. We are yet to see the horrific civilian casualty rate of the American invasion—or the true casualty rate among US troops.
Dr. Caldicott expressed bewilderment why the rest of the world does not stand up to the US and force a halt to its crimes against humanity.
One man heard her—Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.
On February 10 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, President Putin told the world’s assembled political leaders that the US was trying to establish a "uni-polar world," which he defined as "one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."
This goal, Putin said, was a "formula for disaster."
"The United States," Putin said, truthfully, "has overstepped its borders in all spheres" and "has imposed itself on other states."
The Russian leader declared: "We see no kind of restraint—a hyper-inflated use of force."
To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the entire existing architecture of global security was necessary. [Putin says U.S. wants to dominate world, By Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Feb 10, 2007]
Putin’s words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America’s most idiotic and dangerous "leader" after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin’s legitimate criticism of the US with "confrontation."
America’s new puppets—the states of central and Eastern Europe and the secretary general of NATO, no longer a treaty for the defense of Europe but a military force enlisted in America’s quest for empire—lined up with McCain’s argument that Russia was in fundamental conflict "with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies."
Even the BBC’s defense and security correspondent, Rob Watson, jumped on the American propaganda bandwagon, tagging Putin’s speech a revival of the cold war.
No delegate at the security conference stood up to state the obvious fact that it is not Russia that is invading countries under pretexts as false as Hitler’s and setting up weapons systems on foreign soil in order to achieve military hegemony.
The reception given to Putin’s words made it clear to Russia, China, and every country not bribed, threatened or purchased into participation in America’s drive for world hegemony that the US has no interest whatsoever in peace. Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.
The US, Putin said, has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them."
Putin has repeatedly stressed Russia’s peaceful intentions and desire to focus on its economy and to avoid a new arms race. In his speech on the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Putin said: "I am convinced that there is no alternative to our friendship and our fraternity. With our closest neighbors and all countries of the world, Russia is prepared to build a kind of relationship which is not only based on lessons of the past but is also directed into a shared future."
In his 2006 state of the nation speech, Putin noted that America’s military budget is 25 times larger than Russia’s. He compared the Bush Regime to a wolf who eats whom he wants without listening. Putin is being demonized by US propagandists, because he insists upon Russia being a politically and economically independent state [Putin lashes out at 'wolf-like' America, Guardian, May 11, 2006]
The Bush Regime has taken the US outside the boundaries of international law and is acting unilaterally, falsely declaring American military aggression to be "defensive" and in the interests of peace. Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime’s justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.
The solution is nonmilitary challenge.
The Bush Regime’s ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime’s wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.
The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime’s military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime’s two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.
If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.
The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government’s ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America’s will.
The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Paul Craig Roberts [email email@example.com ] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.
Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Is the Military Our Last Hope?
Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime?
By Paul Craig Roberts
With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred. General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency.
General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”
Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.
Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes.
But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.
There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA.
Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?
Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account? Obviously not.
What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?
How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?
Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.
This criminal regime is in the hands of a tiny cabal of fanatical ideologues who would risk the very existence of human life for their perverted ideology that has no higher value than American and Israeli hegemony.
Bush and the congressional sheep say “support the troops,” by which they mean, of course, “continue the war.”
But Bush does not support the troops. On February 12 the Associated Press reported: “The Bush administration’s budget assumes cuts to funding for veterans’ health care two years from now--even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.”
Bush is an ignorant warmonger. He doesn’t care who pays the price as long as the American people let him sit in the Oval Office and play Napoleon.
MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS.
I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda.
NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners. Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.
We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years. The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox “news.” The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media. The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding “controversy” and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.
The only free and independent media in the US is online. The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington.
Then we could trust it again.