Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on February 5, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


In 2002 Bush and Cheney were telling the American People and Congress that we had to remove Saddam from power because to fail to act would risk “Mushroom clouds over American Cities”. Make no mistake about it, it was the belief that Saddam might use nuclear weapons against the U.S. that was feared most and was the issue that convinced Congress to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

At the same time Bush and Cheney were pushing the nuclear threat issue from Saddam, the National Intelligence Estimate had several conclusions that said Saddam had no such weapons and would most likely not be able to acquire such weapons for 5-7 years. This NIE was classified and was only shared with the top leaders of Congress and the members of the intelligence Committees in Congress. The majority of Congress was not given the NIE assessment that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons in 2002 and would not be able to acquire such weapons for 5-7 years.

Time has proven that the 2002 NIE assessment of Saddam’s nuclear capability was correct. The argument by Bush and Cheney that we did not find WMD in Iraq because of the failure of our intelligence is incorrect so far as the nuclear threat is concerned. Bush further contends that Congress agreed that Saddam was a such a great threat that they gave Bush the authority to go to war AS A LAST RESORT. The problem is that when Congress voted on the Iraq War Resolution, the majority DID NOT have the NIE from 2002 because it was classified. Those few members of Congress that did have this intelligence could not share the information with other members of Congress or the American People without violating the law. Thus Congress acted WITHOUT the intelligence from the 16 U.S. Intelligence Agencies that said in 2002 and for 5-7 years in the future Saddam did not pose the nuclear threat the Bush and Cheney claimed when they asked for the authority to invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

Thus, we had a President and Vice President that ignored the most comprehensive intelligence about the major potential threat from Iraq – nuclear weapons. We had a President and Vice President that warned of the smoking gun in the form of Mushroom Clouds over our cities if we failed to remove Saddam from power knowing that Saddam did not have the weapons to conduct a nuclear attack against the United States!.
It was not the failure of our intelligence but the LIES of our two top leaders about the actual danger to our country posed by Saddam in 2002. For this reason, both Bush and Cheney should be Impeached and removed from office. There is no greater offense that a President can commit then taking our country to war predicated on lies. There was no nuclear threat in 2002 from Saddam and Bush and Cheney had the intelligence that said that was the case and deliberately asserted this danger in direct opposition to the intelligence. They further kept that intelligence CLASSIFIED so it was not available to ALL members of Congress and the American People. Bush and Cheney knew, if Congress and the American people saw that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons they would NOT support the invasion of Iraq.

Below are excerpts from the now declassified 2002 NIE that Bush and Cheney had and the majority of Congress and the American people did not have prior to the Iraq War Vote:


How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program
The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Moderate Confidence:
Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.
Low Confidence
• When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
• Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
• Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.



INR's Alternative View: Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes
Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment -- including a variety of machine tools -- and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.

Comments (Page 2)
13 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Feb 06, 2007
"WE HAD NO reason to attack Iraq unless they were a real danger to the U.S."


Uh, we've used nations firing on us around the world as a pretext for war before. I've pointed that out, but you keep ignoring it and pointing the same thing time and again. We've gone to war many times when there was no direct threat to the US.

I still don't believe you have ANY point unless you address the real criteria for impeachment. It's not something you just do because you don't like the president. If it was it would be a non-democratic act of overruling the voters. Frankly, I don't think you'd have a problem with that.

Iraq thwarted sanctions, defied the cease fire, imported military equipment to better fire on our aircraft. The WMD thing should never have been an issue, I'll grant you that, but then the US is full of people who don't recognize a threat unless it is biting them on the ass. The fact is, Iraq or not you'd be right here wanting impeachment because you can't handle the fact that Bush was democratically elected.
on Feb 06, 2007
I do not have the date when the 2002 NIE was declassified but it was AFTER the vote to authorize Bush,


Declassified does not mean that the full report was made public. BEFORE the vote all of Congress was given full access to the NIE. Since they did not bother to look at it, parts of the report was made public.

That may be her opinion. She was one of 435 members of Congress.


It is clear you have no concept of how the government works. Senator Clinton is a SENATOR there are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the house that make up the congress. Why do I have to explain basic civics to a man that says he was in the military for 30 years, worked in business for 30 more years, worked in education for unknown years but you still don't know how Congress works, how it is made up, and how the budget works, who apporves the budget. Are you sure you are an American?

the WMD MOST Americans feared were nuclear weapons.


Thanks to media hype that ignored the protests of the administration running their own scaare headlines.
on Feb 06, 2007
Bakerstreet

Saddam violating UN sanctions is not a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq and was NOT the reason Bush gave for requesting the authority to invade Iraq. We were not asked nor are we the enforcement agent for the UN.

As to the Iraqi's firing on our plains was because we were flying over their country. I can not remember a single plane that we lost in the enforcement of the No Fly Zone. Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.
on Feb 06, 2007
Saddam violating UN sanctions is not a reason for the U.S. to invade Iraq and was NOT the reason Bush gave for requesting the authority to invade Iraq. We were not asked nor are we the enforcement agent for the UN.


Correct! but violationg the peace agreement with the UN is.

Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.


We already addressed this lie of yours.
on Feb 06, 2007
Did we lose any ships in the Gulf of Tonkin? I'm curious as to where this criteria you constantly cite is. Where is it written that the attacked aircraft or ship has to be lost?

Regardless, I'll say for a third time, unless you address the real criteria for impeachment, the argument is meaningless. You might as well be saying Bush should be impeached for being a big doo-doo head. Your intelligence argument is bogus, because there were many that saw the intelligence in question and thought it reason to be worried.

The Senate can't write this one off. The Intelligence Committee had everything they needed to make the kind of determination you are claiming was "obvious", and they still approved military action. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make your arguments from an objective position, and stop being windchimes for anti-Bush flatulence.
on Feb 07, 2007

We've gone to war for a lot less reason than we did with Iraq.

Don't they teach history in whatever high school the Colonel should be attending?

on Feb 07, 2007
Paladin77

Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.


"We already addressed this lie of yours." This is NOT a lie and you are full of Bull Shit. Bush and Cheney did make those statements and the 2002 NIE did say the there was no nuclear danger from Saddam!!!!!!! This direcrly from the NIE:

The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.
on Feb 07, 2007
Paladin77

Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.


"We already addressed this lie of yours." This is NOT a lie and you are full of Bull Shit. Bush and Cheney did make those statements and the 2002 NIE did say the there was no nuclear danger from Saddam!!!!!!! This directly from the NIE:

The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.


Knock off the crap col. It's BS! You know it is and we know it is. "If" the was "ANY" factuality to "anything" you said, GW would be in front of a congressional commitee trying to explain himself. He's NOT and never will be. So it's crap!
on Feb 07, 2007
Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.


Those are not "facts" col. 

Here is what Bush actually said....

"f the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed."

Bush did not state during that speech that Iraq had nuclear weapons, it was the potential of nukes that was the subject.  And according to intelligence reports Saddam was seeking a nuclear program. 

See how you manipulate what someone says, and it turns out to be false?


on Feb 07, 2007
Bush told Congress and the American People that if we did not act in 2003 we risked Mushroom clouds over American Cities. That was a LIE because Bush and Cheney knew from the 2002 NIE that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. NOTHING you have said or could say changes those facts.


I can not tell which lies you tell is stronger. If you don't stop smoking you run the risk of cancer. If you deal with Ssddam we run the risk of mushroom clouds. You are real good at taking what people say and distroting the meaning. Just because you are so ignorant as to believe it means he had nuclear weapons does not make it so. The President and his administration was very clear about the nuclear stuff.But you missed all of that and focused on what they did not say. Either you are a political hack or the least bright person on the planet. Which is it?

You sir are a liar and a political hack.
on Feb 07, 2007
drmiler

"Knock off the crap col. It's BS!”

You are the one full of Bull Shit. I have posted the sections of the 2002 NIE that clearly shows that Bush knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons in 2002 even though he and Draft Dogger Dick were claiming we were in danger from nuclear attack by someone that did not have nuclear weapons. There is NO question, the intent of Bush and Cheney was to make it appear that Saddam would most likely attack us with nuclear weapons unless we invaded Iraq and removed him from power. Saddam was incapable of any such thing and since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have such weapons they LIED pure and simple. Without the nuclear issue there would not have been a vote by Congress to allow Bush to invade Iraq. Also that resolution said Bush could invade Iraq AS A LAST RESORT. We were not even close to a LAST RESORT when Bush invaded. He immediately moved into Iraq even though the UN Weapons Inspectors had NOT completed their work! If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons’ inspectorates to finish, we would all have known that Saddam DID NOT have WMD and there would not have been an Iraq WAR!
on Feb 07, 2007
It's so funny how col keeps claiming something he has been proved wrong about.

If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons’ inspectorates to finish, we would all have known that Saddam DID NOT have WMD and there would not have been an Iraq WAR!


Weapons inspectors failed for 12 years straight.  Saddam was actively trying to deceive them on a daily basis.
on Feb 07, 2007
What have I been proven wrong about?

Bush and Cheney claimed that if we did not remove Saddam that we were in danger of Mushroom Clouds over our cities-- Prove that statement wrong!

Prove this was not in the NIE of 2002--

The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.

• Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.

Low Confidence
• When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
• Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
• Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaeda.

Prove that UN Weapons Inspectors were NOT in Iraq looking for WMD in 2002.

Prove that in Four Years we have found nuclear weapons or long range missiles!


You have NOT disproved any of the above that I have sighted in this Blog. You think by saying you have proven me wrong that that makes the facts GO AWAY. Sorry IDIOTS that is not the case!
on Feb 07, 2007
Here, since you have no urge to address the facts and would prefer to judge offhand statements to the press, etc., here's are the reasons the US Congress decided we should invade Iraq. Notice that many of the claims about WMDs cited are directly referencing Bill Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" and the intelligence he used to push it and his bombing campaign, "Desert Fox".

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


  • Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
  • Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
  • Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
  • Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
  • Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations;
  • Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
  • Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
  • Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
  • Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
  • Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
  • Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
  • Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
  • Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
  • Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
  • Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
  • Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region, and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688;
  • Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
  • Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions, while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable;
  • Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
  • Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
  • Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
  • Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
  • Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Sorry to stink up your blog with the truth, but I think you'll see there that there was a lot more to the invasion than WMDs, and there was no reliance on impending clouds over US cities, mushroom or otherwise. You'll note that the reference to the conclusion about Iraq's intent to produce WMDs is dated 1998, during the Clinton administration.

Again, if you want to be serious about this, address impeachment in the way it would have to be addressed to GET IT DONE; i.e. what is really required for impeachment, and those acts by Bush that would apply. Short of that, you're just blowing smoke.
on Feb 07, 2007
You have NOT disproved any of the above that I have sighted in this Blog. You think by saying you have proven me wrong that that makes the facts GO AWAY. Sorry IDIOTS that is not the case!


As usual personal attacks don't prove you right either.  If you actually read what was posted to you,  you will see you are incorrect.

Also, take notice how pretty much nobody is reporting this except for lefties over at the dailykos, which I believe is a source of some of your "facts" recently.  This is about as useless as the Bush was AWOL nonsense.
13 Pages1 2 3 4  Last