Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Impeach George W. Bush over North American Union agenda says Republican Presidential candidate
Ron Paul / Compiled by Iain Mackenzie
AgoraCosmopolitan | March 30, 2007
Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul says U.S. President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution, from the Iraq War in the "War on Terrorism" and pursuing a North American Union agenda, without legally required Congressional oversight. Such oversight is legally prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.
During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul had outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold.
"I'd be surprised if they win both - I think they're going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort," said Paul.
"If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."
Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.
"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."
Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of "soft fascism," Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.
"Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law." said Paul.
"When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing.
North American Union agenda toward an anti-democratic "New World Order"
Asked what the ultimate agenda was behind the American Union and the push on behalf of the Bush administration to homogenize the US with Mexico and Canada, Paul was clear in his response.
"I think the goal is one world government... we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in."
"I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people," said Paul, noting that Texans in his own backyard were more aware of Bush selling out the country for an North American Union than anyone in Washington.
Ron Paul further says, "Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP). In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous."
According to the U.S. government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of government of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.
Republican Presidential candidate Paul then remarks, "What is a dialogue? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union."
Ron Paul elaborates on a prospective anti-democratic NAU "shadow government" which effectively destroys Canada and the U.S. as democracies:
"According to the SPP website, this dialogue will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade."
"Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified."
Mr. Paul further enquires "Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website...".
"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007."
Though the U.S. administration insists that the SPP does not undermine U.S. sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?
Mr. Paul then indicates that the cited website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the U.S. taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?
Also alarming says Mr. Paul, are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.
Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the U.S. more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.
This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
Could this be Bush's casus belli?
US rejects Iran captives exchange
From the BBC
US officials have ruled out a deal to exchange 15 Royal Navy personnel captured in the Gulf for five Iranians seized by American forces in Iraq.
State department spokesman Sean McCormack rejected suggestions that a swap could be made.
The five, believed to be members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, were seized in January in the Iraqi city of Irbil.
Britain denies Iran's claims that the UK crew was in its waters when seized on 23 March.
The five Iranians were captured in a raid along with equipment which the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons.
US officials have condemned Iran's actions and publicly supported the UK.
Mr McCormack said: "The international community is not going to stand for the Iranian government trying to use this issue to distract the rest of the world from the situation in which Iran finds itself vis-a-vis its nuclear programme."
Meanwhile, Iran's ambassador to Russia has said the UK captives could face trial for violating international law.
"It is possible that the British soldiers who entered into Iranian waters will go on trial for taking this illegal action," Gholamreza Ansari told Russian television channel Vesti-24, according to Iran's IRNA news agency.
Earlier, Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned Iran for "parading" the UK crew on television in a way which would only "enhance people's sense of disgust".
In what appeared to be an edited broadcast on an Iranian channel, sailor Nathan Thomas Summers said: "I would like to apologise for entering your waters without permission."
He was shown alongside two colleagues, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, from Shropshire, who was broadcast apologising to Iran earlier in the week.
A third letter, allegedly from LS Turney, was released on Friday in which she said she had been "sacrificed" to UK and US government policy.
The BBC has been able to confirm the names of six of the 15 captured sailors and marines.
Along with LS Turney and Nathan Summers, who is from Cornwall, they are Paul Barton from Southport, Danny Masterton from Ayrshire, Joe Tindall from south London and Adam Sperry from Leicester.
European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Bremen, Germany, called for "the immediate and unconditional release" of the sailors and expressed "unconditional support" for Britain's position.
UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett described the latest footage as "quite appalling" and "blatant propaganda".
She also disclosed there was nothing in a formal letter from the Iranians to the UK that suggested they were looking for a solution to "this difficult situation".
In the latest video, Nathan Summers says: "Since we've been arrested in Iran our treatment has been very friendly.
"We have not been harmed at all. They've looked after us really well.
"The food they've been serving us is good and I am grateful that no harm has come to us.
I would just like to apologise for entering your waters without permission. And that happened back in 2004, and the government promised that it wouldn't happen again."
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said last year US President Bush gave a secret order that Iranian agents believed working in Iraq should be captured or killed because of the coalition's belief that Iran was "fermenting trouble in Iraq".
He said it meant there was a "compelling theory" that the UK sailors were captured as a result of an order "from the highest levels of Iranian government" which would make it a "very different game" for the Foreign Office to sort out.
Earlier, the UN Security Council called on Tehran to allow the UK access to the personnel and urges an "early resolution", including release of the crew, but stopped short of "deploring" Iran's action, as requested by the UK.
The Britons, based on HMS Cornwall, were seized by Revolutionary Guards as they returned from searching a vessel in the northern Gulf.
Uranium and the War
The effects of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq
By John Williams
In five billion years our sun will explode into a white dwarf and envelope the earth, according to NASA projections.
The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years.
This means that by the time the Earth ceases to be a planet, only a little more than half of the depleted uranium (DU) that the United States Army is firing into Iraq and other countries around the world will be gone. The rest of the radioactive material will still be poisoning the Iraqi people.
The U.S. Army revealed in March 2003 that it dropped between 320 and 390 tons of DU during the Gulf War—the first time the material was ever used in combat—and it is estimated that more still has been dropped during the current invasion, though there have been no official counts as yet.
Depleted uranium munitions are extremely dense, toxic, and mildly radioactive. And despite mounting evidence of DU’s negative health affects for combatants and civilians alike, their use is increasing.
Naturally occurring uranium has three forms: uranium 235, 234, and 238. More than 99 percent of earth’s uranium is 238. Uranium 238 is much less radioactive than uranium 235, which is why it takes so long to deteriorate.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants require highly radioactive uranium, so the uranium 238 is removed from the naturally occurring uranium by a process known as enrichment. Depleted uranium is the by-product of the uranium enrichment process.
Since so much of the natural uranium is 238—which is nearly useless for nuclear weapons manufacturing and use in power plants—uranium enrichment factories are left with large amounts of uranium 238, or DU. According to an estimate by the Kansas-based group Nukewatch, the United States has over a billion pounds of DU in its stockpile. This product is twice as dense as lead, and more toxic than it. DU is used to make numerous weapons systems, from shells to bullets to armor for tanks. DU munitions are commonly called Penetrators, a testament to the material’s density.
Effects in Combat
Depleted uranium was a major topic of discussion during a Feb. 24 forum at UC Santa Cruz with speakers from the Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW). The panel consisted of five members of the IVAW chapter in Olympia, Washington who visited Santa Cruz as part of a speaking tour of the west coast.
Joe Hatcher, a member of IVAW who served in Iraq with the army’s 4th Calvary Brigade from February 2004 to March 2005, described the on-the-ground reality of DU use in Iraq.
“During our invasion of Basra, I got a call from Bravo team, who was on the other side of the town,” Hatcher recalled. “They said, ‘Stop firing, the DU bullets are coming through at us.’ Our bullets were going through the whole city and coming out the other side. Keep in mind Basra is a city of about two and a half million people.” (more than three times the population of San Francisco.)
Hatcher continued, “If I can shoot a bullet into a mud house and have it go for possibly miles, then it’s no wonder there are so many civilian deaths.”
A Johns Hopkins Study published in October 2006 placed the Iraqi death total during the American occupation at 655,000, roughly one for every 40 people in Iraq—due in part to the use of DU munitions.
The Royal Society, Britain’s preeminent scientific organization, conducted what many consider to be the definitive independent study of wartime DU. The study found that the radioactive dust that a DU bullet creates upon impact can travel more than 26 miles. It also noted that when a bullet made of DU hits a target, it explodes at heat levels upwards of 6000 degrees Celsius.
Apart from the physical destruction DU bullets cause, their impact on the health of both soldiers and citizens alike is cause for concern.
Tom Cassidy, an IVAW member who served in Iraq from 2003 to 2005 in the 1st Cavalry Division, also spoke of the dangers of nuclear radiation from the DU bullets.
“After the first gulf war, the level of radiation was 300 times what is considered normal,” Cassidy said. “In this invasion we used even more DU bullets. The effects there are horrible.”
Joe Hatcher explained that being around nuclear radioactive material in Iraq was commonly known to be part of the job.
“Before I went home on my last tour of duty, I was assigned to clean the trucks that we had used, because as they were they wouldn’t pass environmental standards to come into Germany, because of the radiation they were around,” Hatcher said. “I tell this to folks here in America, and oftentimes they’ll freak out, but back there it was just normal, just another assignment.”
Kate Flanagan, a UCSC feminist studies major and the event organizer, discussed the importance of raising awareness about the prevalence of DU.
“Depleted uranium is just one factor in the whole military industrial complex, though a particularly dangerous one,” Flanagan said. “The only way to stop depleted uranium is to stop the war.”
Effects on Health
Hatcher and his fellow members of the IVAW believe that their experiences in the Gulf War were the beginnings of what will be a long-term health problem in the region.
Dennis Kyne served in the U.S. Army 18th Airborne Division for 15 years as a non-commissioned officer and a drill sergeant during Desert Storm. Kyne has devoted much of his time since his service in the first Gulf War to investigating the use of DU and its effects on soldiers and civilians. One of Kyne’s most urgent complaints is the testing that was done on U.S. soldiers returning from Kuwait.
“After I returned from Desert Storm, I was put into one of the slew of study groups [the army] stuffed vets into—mine was for ionizing radiation. In 1995 I was compensated for undiagnosed illnesses,” Kyne said.
According to a congressional hearing of the Veteran’s Disability Benefits Commission, over half a million veterans suffer from undiagnosed illnesses, which may or may not be due to the radiation. Radiation sickness is considered by some researchers to be a leading cause of Gulf War syndrome—an illness involving a weakening of the immune system that many veterans of the Gulf War have reported.
Kyne has transformed his personal experiences into a public agenda. He has written two books on DU and its effects, a number of articles, including one article entitled, “Whatever Happened to the Test Tube Paradigm,” first published in the San Francisco Bayview in Feb. 2005, which was one of the first to bring light to DU issues. He has been interviewed in a number of documentaries, TV shows, and radio shows, including Nightline and NPR. He recently ran for city council in his hometown of San Jose on a peace platform.
“The scientists call it cell disruption, and they don’t know why it’s happening to veterans, but it’s really radiation sickness,” Kyne said. “And it’s because the DU is all over.”
The Royal Society investigation into DU wartime use found that there was a possibility that soldiers who had been in close proximity with DU munitions would have twice the risk of death from lung cancer as those who were not. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has not spoken out against the use of DU munitions, their website states that, “the behavior of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.”
Roberto Gwiazda, a researcher in the environmental toxicology department at UCSC, was the lead researcher in a project examining the level of uranium in veterans of the Gulf War, including vets who had sustained shrapnel wounds involving radioactive material. These were all friendly fire incidents, as the United States is the only country in the world that uses DU shells.
“Of those with radioactive shrapnel wounds, all had significant levels of uranium in their urine seven to nine years after the explosion,” Gwiazda said. “Of those who only inhaled the incendiary uranium, a statistically significant number also had high uranium levels.”
A study conducted by the Pentagon in 2002 predicted that, “every future battlefield will be contaminated” with DU. The fact that radioactive dust from a bullet explosion can spread nearly 30 miles means that the radius of disruption surrounding a battle sight can be vast. Further, the WHO report on DU states, “Over the days and years following [DU contamination], the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.”
Army training manuals inform American military personnel that DU contamination renders food and water unsafe for consumption.
While soldiers do not have to continue living in the contaminated areas for the rest of their lives, people living in Iraq are not so lucky. Tom Engleart, another IVAW speaker, recalled the high rate of birth complications since the US occupation, and DU use, began.
“I don’t call the birth defects there defects,” Englehart said. “There were defects after the first Gulf War, a lot of them. But now there’s a massive upswing in miscarriages and stillborns. They’re just these pulpy masses with no form.”
Up-to-date health information from Iraq is difficult to come by. But a November report from Al-jazeera concluded that, “[The] cancer rate in Iraq has increased tenfold, and the number of birth defects has multiplied fivefold times since the 1991 war. The increase is believed to be caused by depleted uranium.”
Alliant Techsystems (ATK) is the country’s largest producer of depleted uranium weaponry. While most arms makers use DU to armor tanks, the DU munitions that ATK produces are more controversial. ATK has received contracts from the U.S. Armed Forces totaling $52,000,000 in the past month alone, according to their website. Bryce Hallowell explained ATK’s reasoning behind producing DU weapons.
“We want to make the best weapons possible for the U.S. Army,” Hallowell said. “We do not want a fair fight. We want the army to be able to engage the enemy at long distances and take them out.”
Dave Hansen, a member of an activist group called Alliant Action, helps organize weekly vigils at ATK’s headquarters to protest the company’s DU production. Although the vigils have taken place for over a decade, according to Hansen there are as yet no signs of decreasing production from the company.
“There have been weekly vigils for ten years now, as well as intermittent civil disobedience,” Hansen said. “That’s a long time, with not a whole lot to show. But the movement is growing, so that’s good news.”
But Hansen’s movement is just to stop the production of radioactive weapons. Even if Alliant Action’s campaign to end DU munitions production were successful, hundreds of tons of radioactive material would still be scattered across the globe.
This reality was not a landscape of hope for Kate Flanagan. As she put it, “As far as DU is concerned, there’s not much hope.”
Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran, New 9/11… or Worse
By Heather Wokusch
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” – George W. Bush, September 2002
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous… Having said that, all options are on the table.” – George W. Bush, February 2005
03/29/07 "ICH " -- -- The Bush administration continues moving closer to a nuclear attack on Iran, and we ignore the obvious buildup at our peril.
Russian media is sounding alarms. In February, ultra-nationalist leader Vladimir Shirinovsky warned that the US would launch a strike against Tehran at the end of this month. Then last week, the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti (RIA-Novosti) quoted military experts predicting the US will attack Iran on April 6th, Good Friday. According to RIA-Novosti, the imminent assault will target Iranian air and naval defense capabilities, armed forces headquarters as well as key economic assets and administration headquarters. Massive air strikes will be deployed, possibly tactical nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration will attempt to exploit the resulting chaos and political unrest by installing a pro-US government.
Sound familiar? It's Iraq Déjà vu all over again, and we know how well that war has gone.
Seymour Hersh has published numerous articles in The New Yorker detailing the Bush administration's plans to invade Iran. His latest, "The Redirection," discusses US participation in Iran-based clandestine operations, the kidnapping of hundreds of Iranians (including many "humanitarian and aid workers") by US forces and the shocking revelation that an Iran-Contra-type scandal has been run out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office with some of the illicit funds going to groups "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."
"The Redirection" also reports that the Pentagon has been planning to bomb Iran for a year and that a recently-established group connected to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is formulating a assault strategy to be implemented "upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours." Hersh notes that current capabilities "allow for an attack order this spring," possibly when four US aircraft-carrier battle groups are scheduled to be in the Persian Gulf simultaneously.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress busies itself with non-binding, timid resolutions on Iraq and recently altered a military-funding bill to make it easier for Bush to invade Iran. As Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) explained, language demanding that Bush seek congressional approval before attacking Iran "would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran."
Such sheer ignorance and blind denial would be laughable if it weren't marching us into Armageddon.
But with this Administration (and this Congress, apparently) diplomacy be damned.
It's now widely known that Iran had broached peace talks with the US in 2003 - Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted as much in 2006 when she said, "what the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States." Yet the White House rejected Tehran's overture outright and Rice has since developed selective amnesia, later saying of the Iranian proposal, I don't remember seeing any such thing. "
For its part, the UN Security Council recently tightened sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran to cease uranium enrichment, and in response, Iran announced it would cooperate less with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It's worth noting that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and says that its program falls under the legally permitted right to "peacefully use nuclear technology." In contrast, Israel has neither signed nor ratified the NPT and the US would breach the Treaty by conducting a nuclear attack against Iran.
Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks attack, yet that other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. When considering that India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) developed secret nuclear weapons programs yet remain on good terms with Washington, the case for war becomes even more tenuous.
What consequences would arise from a US attack on Iran? Retaliation, for one. Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any US or Israeli assault, and while the country - ironically - doesn't possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts a standing army estimated at 450,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world's oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of water which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn't be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting the price of crude oil to over $100 a barrel, with untold negative consequences for the world economy.
An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, and could tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to alienate during his period in office.
The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.
The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear. And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war?
Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States." Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in response to a terrorist attack on the US, but not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible. How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.
While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth noting that last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier for the President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist incident. And recall that in late 2003, General Tommy Franks openly speculated on how a new 9/11 could lead to a military form of government: "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."
Meanwhile, Iran conducted war games in the Persian Gulf last week and just yesterday, the US Navy began its largest maneuvers in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion, complete with over 100 US warplanes and 10,000 personnel.
The clock is ticking, and there's far too much at stake.
If you're from the US, contact your Senators today and ask them to support the Webb amendment prohibiting the Administration from attacking Iran without congressional approval. Tell them to support the Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) bill making it harder for Bush to declare martial law and take over the National Guard, and while you're at it, tell your Senators to only fund troop withdrawal and to bring the troops home. Thank those Congress members who voted against more war funding.
We could be looking at WWIII. The time for positive action is now.
©Heather Wokusch 2002-2006 - http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Home