Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on April 15, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics


The undeniable truth about Iraq has been confirmed by the detailed information being provided by our most senior retired military leaders. Some try and deflect the real culprits by saying WHY did these Generals not come forward at the time? First, many of the facts now coming to light were classified and when The Army Chief of Staff did disagree with Bush he was removed so that any other similar minded officials would take note.

The two issues that been confirmed beyond any doubt by the information that has been revealed by our generals are:

Iraq was NO DANGER to the United States in March 2003 when Bush invaded.

The conduct of the war was dictated by Bush/Cheney and executed by Rumsfeld was responsible for the vast majority of the deaths and injuries and for the hundreds of billions of tax dollars we have spent on that war.

Issue # 1. Danger from Iraq

Generals Zinni and Trainor in their books have documented that Iraq was incapable of ANY military action beyond limited operations in the central portion of Iraq. They had no Air Force, Navy nor had they an effective Army. They were limited by the No-Fly zones from operating in the northern and southern areas of Iraq. This was the military assessment apart from the issue of WMD. In addition, the total body of intelligence about WMD clearly indicated that at best Saddam had some old gas filled artillery shells from the first gulf war and even those were thought to be suspect because the gas over time tends to loose its potency. The assessment by the CIA, DIA, Dept of Energy, and Dept of State was that Saddam had no active nuclear program and was not in possession of ANY nuclear capability. The desire he may have had for such weapons did not present any danger. There was NO creditable evidence of any viable bio material or any way to employ such material.

The generals have confirmed that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was made long before the attack on the United States.

On December 19, 2001 at a meeting between President Clinton and Pres-Elect Bush, Clinton told Bush that from his campaign statements it appeared Bush felt the two security issues most important to him were Missile Defense and Iraq. Bush confirmed that to Clinton. Clinton told Bush that he has a very different set of potential dangers- Al Qaeda, Middle East (Israel/Palestine conflict) and North Korea. Bush DID NOT RESPOND.

Right after the Supreme Court settled the 2000 election; VP Elect Cheney requested a security briefing from Secretary of Defense Cohen on Iraq. Not Iran, Not Al Qaeda, Not North Korea and not the Palestine issue- Just Iraq.

Gen Zinni, who was retired but serving as a security consultant at the Pentagon and who saw ALL the intelligence leading up to our invasion has stated he could not believe what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were saying about the danger from Iraq given the intelligence he was seeing. It did not square with the information that he was reviewing. General Zinni has stated that the intelligence and military assessment of Saddam clearly showed he was no danger to the United States and had only limited capability within certain areas in Iraq itself.

Former Secretary of the Treasury confirms that the plan to take action against Iraq was on the drawing board at the first Bush Cabinet meeting in early 2001 about eight months BEFORE 9/11 or ANY talk about the War On Terrorism.


Issue #2 The conduct of the Iraq War

Most of the American deaths and injuries occurred after Saddam fell during our occupation of Iraq. Most of the money spent occurred during the occupation phase of the war. The reason we sustained most of the deaths and injuries is because of the decision by Bush as implemented by Rumsfeld to disregard the military plan for the Iraq War.

Soon after Rumsfeld took over he asked for a briefing on the Iraq War Plans. That plan was designated as OPLAN 1003-98. It had been prepared and updated over the past ten years by the people who ran the first Gulf War and was the BEST military assessment of the way a war should be conducted against Iraq including the required manpower. That plan called for 500,000 troops to properly insure security when the existing government fell. When Rumsfeld heard of the manpower requirement he said that was not correct and told the military staff including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the COS of the Army that it would only take 125,000 troops. Gen Franks was directed by Rumsfeld to revise the plan. He returned some time later with a requirement for 300,000 troops. Bush went to war with about 150,000 to control a country the size of California with 24 million people including about 300,000 former Saddam military that were dispersed thought the country.

The lack of manpower that resulted from the decision by Bush and implemented by Rumsfeld to abandon the most senior military advice and planning resulted in the following after Saddam fell:

We could not secure the several hundred Ammo Dumps spread thought Iraq. This is where the insurgents got the explosives and weapons they used to kill about 2,000 and injure over 15,000 of our young man and women.

We could not control the growing conflict between the factions in Iraq that have killed and injured our troops. Today this failure threatens a Civil war in Iraq.

We could not secure the borders and prevent outside terrorists from entering Iraq like Al Qaeda. Thus we have enabled terrorists, responsible for 9/11, to begin operating in Iraq where they did not operate PRIOR to our invasion.

We could not secure the oil, water and electrical infrastructure or provide the level of security that would enable Iraq to recover from Saddam and the impact of our invasion. After over three years, and three elections, the areas where the most people live are anything but secure.

The blood of 2,360 brave American Troops and over 17,000 combat injuries are on the hands of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld!

Other then the loss of life and injuries, the issue for me, having served in the military for 30 years, is that we have:

Deceived our brave and dedicated military into thinking their sacrifice was because America was threatened by Saddam and Iraq.

We sent our military into combat WITHOUT the troop levels or equipment to accomplish their mission and to minimize the danger to them.

Our President and his immediate subordinates are responsible for the loss of life and injuries to our military. We have not had many darker days in our history then during the administration of George W. Bush.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 18, 2006
This has nothing to do with revisionism. It has to do with information that at the time was kept from the public including Congress. The very few in Congress that has access to this information could not act because Bush insured it was classified and thus it was NOT possible, without violating the law, for the few who were aware of ALL the facts to speak.

The generals that are coming out telling us ALL the facts today were not looking in the window AT THE TIME they were in the room.

It would only be revisionism if ALL the facts were out at the time and NOW someone was trying to alter those facts that were known AT THE TIME. What we have is an unveiling of the totality of the information that existed in 2002 and early 2003 about the danger Saddam and Iraq posed to the United States in March 2003. The problem for Bush is that when anyone looks at ALL the information that WAS available, we see that Saddam and Iraq were NO DANGER and thus our invasion was UNJUSTIFIED. That makes ALL our deaths and injuries unjustified. After you move from the question of should we have invaded Iraq to did we follow the plan the military developed to invade and occupy Iraq the answer is NO. The WHY is because Bush and Rumsfeld overrode the military plan and substituted a plan that DID not provide the manpower required to secure the country and the result is the MAJORITY of American deaths and Injuries? That puts the fault for our losses directly at the feet of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld!
on Apr 18, 2006
Funny how Col puts down civilians for not having military skills. Even funnier is that in most cases civilians are the ones who create the weapons used in wars, civilians are the ones who pay the soldiers when they join the military forces and civilians are the ones who get the smack in the face before the soldiers get to work. It seems that soldiers wouldn't and couldn't be soldiers withour us civilians.

Oh, BTW, it's us civilians who put the Commander-in-Chief in his chair and therefor the military technically does what the civilians want. Technically.
on Apr 18, 2006
Charles.C
When you have people that lack experience make decisions the results usually reflect their lack of experience. That is true with the Iraq War.

If you needed a heart transplant would you have a plumber or a cardio vascular surgeon that had successfully perform the operation hundreds of times operate on you?

Case Closed!
on Apr 18, 2006
If you needed a heart transplant would you have a plumber or a cardio vascular surgeon that had successfully perform the operation hundreds of times operate on you?

Case Closed!


Col, your stupidity is remarkable. Since when does a President need military experience in order to become the Commander in Chief?

What would happen if the US had no wars for, say, 200 years, would any president for those 200 years be a good Commander in Chief since none of them had experince in 200 years?

If there's anything closed here it's your brain.
on Apr 18, 2006
If you needed a heart transplant would you have a plumber or a cardio vascular surgeon that had successfully perform the operation hundreds of times operate on you?


Too bad you weren't around to argue the same when Bill Clinton was running his own little wars, Col.

The Constitutional requirements for the presidency do not, and should not, include military service.
on Apr 18, 2006
The very few in Congress that has access to this information could not act because Bush insured it was classified and thus it was NOT possible, without violating the law, for the few who were aware of ALL the facts to speak.


They could have done something very simple and powerful, Gene - voted against authorizing the invasion and encouraged their fellow congressmen & senators to follow suit. And they could have easily said they had doubts about the intelligence without breaking the law. No one has ever said the intelligence you're so hopped up about wasn't there. You're kidding yourself if you think knowing there was a minority opinion about whether Iraq was pursuing yellowcake from Niger or not would have countered all the intelligence gathered throughout the administrations of Bush 1 & Clinton & persuaded more than a couple of people, if any, to change their minds.

It's all about revisionism with you, Gene.
on Apr 18, 2006
The very few in Congress that has access to this information could not act because Bush insured it was classified and thus it was NOT possible, without violating the law, for the few who were aware of ALL the facts to speak.


You know, for a guy as stupid as Bush, according to Col gene, he is the smartest man I have ever seen. Not only did he win Presidency twice, but he managed to fool the entire country into believing Iraq was a threat and he kept Congress in the dark with all this Classified information, he also made everyone believe that the deficit is OK and last but not least he made everyone agree to the Patriot Act. Now here we have the dumbest man in the world according to Col gene.
on Apr 18, 2006
Being Commander-in-Chief does not mean you establish the troop levels or tactics required to accomplish a military mission. Without military experience you have NO basis to make intelligent decisions. The military had a plan should the Commander-in Chief choose to go to war against Iraq. When that choice was made, the military should be choosing the troop levels, tactics etc. When the military is not allowed to make those choices you get what we have today in Iraq-- Dead and Injured soldiers and a country near Civil War! That is what the generals have documented. In addition, the initial decisions to go to was by the Commander-in-Chief was made even though the ability of the enemy was such that they were NOT A THREAT. Bush got BOTH decisions WRONG!
on Apr 19, 2006
Being Commander-in-Chief does not mean you establish the troop levels or tactics required to accomplish a military mission. Without military experience you have NO basis to make intelligent decisions. The military had a plan should the Commander-in Chief choose to go to war against Iraq. When that choice was made, the military should be choosing the troop levels, tactics etc. When the military is not allowed to make those choices you get what we have today in Iraq-- Dead and Injured soldiers and a country near Civil War! That is what the generals have documented. In addition, the initial decisions to go to was by the Commander-in-Chief was made even though the ability of the enemy was such that they were NOT A THREAT. Bush got BOTH decisions WRONG!


Blah blah blah blah blah. If what you say is true, then WHY DID THEY FOLLOW HIS DESICION IF HE CAN'T DO SO? EASY, THAT'S BECAUSE HE CAN, WHAT YOUR STUPID LITTLE MIND FORGETS IS THAT BUSH HAS PLENTY OF ADVISORS, INCLUDING MILITARY, WHICH HELP HIM MAKE THESE DESICIONS. HE DOESN'T GO INTO A ROOM ALL BY HIMSELF AND COMU UP WITH IDEAS ALL ALONE. YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON COL GENE.
on Apr 19, 2006
I think Bush jr and Bush Senior both had a Hard-on for Iraq.
I don't think it takes a big leap in judgement to see that.
I think even stout Bush supporters should be able to atleast acknowledge the fact the the rational to going to war with Iraq was atleast muddled.

P.S. I think it would be rather easy for a president to fool the masses by whipping up the threat to this country.
2 Pages1 2