Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.


Last week the testimony of Scoter Libby focused more light on the way Bush and Cheney lead our country into war in Iraq. The most important decision ANY president can make is to take our country into conflict with another nation.

The Iraq War was a selective and preemptive conflict. It was not like WWII for example. The rational used by Bush and Cheney to justify invading Iraq was that our country was in danger from Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The arguments for our preemptive attach were NOT:


Saddam was an evil dictator.
Saddam had violated U N Resolutions we had to enforce.
The Iraqi people should be able to choose a new government.

The argument Bush and Cheney used to justify attacking Iraq in March 2003 was that Iraq was such a danger that we could not risk waiting for a smoking gun which could be mushroom clouds over American Cities.

When No WMD was found after we had deposed Saddam and occupied Iraq, the reason was that the intelligence used to justify the invasion was faulty - Not only our Intelligence but the intelligence of our allies as well. Now we are learning that only the intelligence that appeared to support the Bush/Cheney push to invade Iraq was made available. Bush released sensitive and formerly classified intelligence that bolstered his position while keeping other classified intelligence that showed Saddam was not a threat was kept secret. Bush released some sections of a document while keeping other sections classified depending on weather the intelligence supported his position or not.

Look at some of what is becoming known about the intelligence that was used to justify this preemptive war:

"Bush cherry picked the intelligence" "Official intelligence on Iraq weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what lead to war."

Paul R. Piller
Chief Iraq Intelligence officer at the CIA

Gen Zinni, former CENCOM commander and security consultant up to the time of our invasion had this to say in his new book, The Battle For Peace:

He watched ALL the intelligence about Iraq pass over his desk during the period before our invasion. He said there was a wealth of intelligence that was buried and totally ignored. Anything that indicated Saddam was not a threat was not released. Information that said he has NO nuclear program. Intelligence that discounted other forms of WMD available to Saddam. Intelligence that the only WMD that was likely in the Saddam arsenal were OLD gas filled artillery shells left over from the first Gulf War. The intelligence said even these weapons were most likely no longer dangerous because the gas had most likely become inert. Intelligence that said Saddam had no viable military force to attack ANY country.

The action that is unforgivable is to take America into a preemptive War by manipulating the intelligence and justification for that war. 2,300 dead military, 35,000 injured military and as much as a trillion dollars spent on a war using manipulated information designed to present a false danger to justify invading Iraq. This deception mandates the removal of both Bush and Cheney from office. What they did is worse then the Clinton lies or even the Nixon obstruction of justice.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments
on Apr 09, 2006
the only unforgivable act Bush and cheney have done is TRY TO WORK with loons like you gene.
on Apr 09, 2006

You Bush supports are beyond belief. Here we have a President that manipulated the intelligence and sent our military to a war that has killed several thousand and injured 35,000 against a country that did not endanger our country. WHY?
on Apr 09, 2006
You're assuming emotional voters are also rational.
on Apr 10, 2006
The answers to your rhetorical questions have been given over & over again, Gene, to no effect (on you). Some of us happen to disagree with your interpretation of events & motives. Deal with it.
on Apr 10, 2006
Daiwa

The intelligence that was hidden by Bush is now out and it clearly shows that at the time the case for war was being made by Bush and Cheney that ANY Intelligence that DID NOT support the argument for war was KEPT from Congress and the American People by Bush.

We have not found the WMD

We know that there were No terrorist groups operating in Iraq like in Afghanistan at the time we invaded Iraq.

We know that Iraq and Saddam HAD NOTHING to do with 9/11.

We know that Saddam did not have a military that was capable of even defending Iraq much less attacking the United States.

Which of the ABOVE IS IN DISPUTE?


on Apr 10, 2006
Here is another story of how the Bush policy in the Moslem world of spreading democracy is not working.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/middleeast/10democracy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
on Apr 10, 2006
Try this URL

www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/middleeast/10democracy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
on Apr 10, 2006
I don't disagree with you, COL, far from it, and good on you for a very well thought out argument.

What I cannot understand is what would drive This administration to go to war, when all the evidence says there is no intelligence to support the war why did it happen, it is a real worry, especially now the same administration is strategising over what can be done about Iran, not to mention the fact that the US still seems to be drifting dangerously close to confrontation with Nth Korea, what which may see Nth Korea as the pre-emptive combatants, which could prove to be a far worse scenario than 9/11.

The sad point is if they had of gone in with the intention of freeing the people of Iraq from The Baath part and its Leadership particularly Saddam Hussein then maybe at least we might understand, instead they went in with a lie, why should we trust any assessment of intelligence on Iran. Even if this time they are correct, who will believe them?

The sad reality is that now we have a situation where US troops, as well as alliance troops, and many innocent lives are being lost, all based on a lie, and now we are in a position where we are stuck here, costing many nations Billions of dollars, money which could be used to help the sick, the elderly, and many others in these countries.

And yet there are still who continue to support this lie, and the actions that came of it.

The reality is, Saddam had to go but this it not the reason behind why this war happened, at least not for humanitarian reasons.
on Apr 10, 2006
I never though it possible for anyone to get so many points on this site and so many replies by simply repeating the same articles over and over and over. Even funnier is that no matter what is put to refute any argument make the writer of this article, none of it is true except for his "facts". Not once has the writer of these areticles ever given anyone a "maybe you're right" response on so many occations where fatcs were presented by repliers to argue against facts presented by the writer.

These arguments are boring and repeptitive and serve no purpose or give new information and are a waste of time, especially when only 1 or 2 people defend the writer.
on Apr 10, 2006
I never though it possible for anyone to get so many points on this site and so many replies by simply repeating the same articles over and over and over.

I think it's hilarious that COL Gene has decided that the Plame outing and the Iraq War have something in common. 'Cause that's how he starts his thread, with Libby. Then his car goes careening into the chasm of the Iraq invasion.

So let me give him an opportunity to connect this:

COL, how does Scooter Libby's testimony impel you to rehash tired old arguments for going to war in Iraq? Or is it just a convenient tool to get some more mindless bile out of your system regarding the Bush administration?

'Cause there's a long road between Scooter's testimony and the fall of Baghdad.
on Apr 10, 2006
singrdave

The most recent information learned from the Libby testimony is that Bush and Cheney choose to declassify selected sensitive intelligence where it supported the claim Saddam was so dangerous that we had to invade Iraq while keeping other intelligence secret that said NO Saddam was NOT a threat and does not have the capacity to harm our country. It is also a problem that our president that claims releasing sensitive information endangers this country and then does that very thing while telling us he wants to learn the source of the sensitive information. All he had to do was look in the mirror!
on Apr 10, 2006
It is also a problem that our president that claims releasing sensitive information endangers this country and then does that very thing while telling us he wants to learn the source of the sensitive information.

You are making the assumption that all classified material is of the same importance. The menu at the CIA cafeteria is protected, too, but no one is gonna die from an unintentional or intentional leak.

As commander-in-chief, Bush has the purview to deem the release of information acceptable or unacceptable. Gerald Ford let slip some of the collection tactics of the US intel community. Not a leak, it was an administrative action. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Just because you're not personally aware of all the dealings of the White House doesn't mean it's dastardly.
on Apr 10, 2006
It is also a problem that our president that claims releasing sensitive information endangers this country and then does that very thing while telling us he wants to learn the source of the sensitive information.


Had a false version not already been leaked by Wilson and played mercilessly to the press (for political reasons), Bush would have had no need to declassify any of it. Wilson does something illegal and he's lionized as some sort of hero for it. Bush does something perfectly legal and within his authority and the Gene types condemn him as a crook.

Go figure.
on Apr 10, 2006
I said similar thoughts to this on BakerStreet's article, too, but I will restate it here because it bears repeating...
Bush released sensitive and formerly classified intelligence that bolstered his position

So you would similarly condemn Reagan for declassifying the cockpit audio from the MIGs who shot down the KAL airliner, too? You know that by your stunted definition, that was an "illegal declassification" too. Did Reagan have Congress' permission to go on national television and set the record straight? Or did he do the right thing and present what the US had to offer on the subject?