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 4)
13 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Feb 07, 2007
How about we just drop the degree part altogether and just agree to the bs artist bit?


Without a doubt he is an artist of bull. Now that this line of crap has been debunked he will make one more attempt to BS us then will drop it and start another article saying the same things all over again as if they have never been brought up before.
on Feb 08, 2007

How about we just drop the degree part altogether and just agree to the bs artist bit?


Without a doubt he is an artist of bull. Now that this line of crap has been debunked he will make one more attempt to BS us then will drop it and start another article saying the same things all over again as if they have never been brought up before.


That's the way he "always" works. When his arguements no longer hold water, or you back him into a corner...he turns and runs away! Biggest "Coward" I've ever seen!
on Feb 08, 2007
Bakerstreet et al

"Just as Bush said in the speech, we had no 100% intelligence on any of this, and it was more dangerous to assume the best than to assume the worst."

This is the central problem. There were MAJOR elements that Bush and Cheney had PRIOR to our invasion that refuted the arguments Bush was making for attacking Saddam. The 2002 NIE clearly said there was no nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney claimed and no matter what you say that was the danger that Congress and MOST Americans were concerned about. It was not that Saddam did not obey UN Resolutions or that he might have some old gas filled Artillery Shells. It was the specter of those Mushroom clouds that were not POSSIBLE given the fact Saddam did not have the weapons to produce those Mushroom Clouds and Bush and Cheney had that intelligence prior to seeking the Congressional resolution. It was the Pentagon assessment that Saddam was not a military threat. There was advice that an invasion was a major risk and it would take a large number of troops.
You claim I do not read what you post. I read it but so much is just clutter in an attempt to cover the known facts. No matter how many Congressional resolutions or UN Resolutions you post, the following facts have been established that Bush and Cheney knew about prior to seeking congressional Approval to invade Iraq:


2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons!Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq.Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that invading a Moslem country by the US risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq.Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence.Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq.Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell.

Bush HAD NO foreign policy or military experience and ignored the advice from those that had the knowledge and experience. Time has proven that they were correct --Bush and Cheney were WRONG!
on Feb 08, 2007
Bakerstreet et al

"Just as Bush said in the speech, we had no 100% intelligence on any of this, and it was more dangerous to assume the best than to assume the worst."

This is the central problem. There were MAJOR elements that Bush and Cheney had PRIOR to our invasion that refuted the arguments Bush was making for attacking Saddam. The 2002 NIE clearly said there was no nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney claimed and no matter what you say that was the danger that Congress and MOST Americans were concerned about. It was not that Saddam did not obey UN Resolutions or that he might have some old gas filled Artillery Shells. It was the specter of those Mushroom clouds that were not POSSIBLE given the fact Saddam did not have the weapons to produce those Mushroom Clouds and Bush and Cheney had that intelligence prior to seeking the Congressional resolution. It was the Pentagon assessment that Saddam was not a military threat. There was advice that an invasion was a major risk and it would take a large number of troops.
You claim I do not read what you post. I read it but so much is just clutter in an attempt to cover the known facts. No matter how many Congressional resolutions or UN Resolutions you post, the following facts have been established that Bush and Cheney knew about prior to seeking congressional Approval to invade Iraq:


2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons!Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq.Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that invading a Moslem country by the US risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq.Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence.Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq.Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell.

Bush HAD NO foreign policy or military experience and ignored the advice from those that had the knowledge and experience. Time has proven that they were correct --Bush and Cheney were WRONG!


You are SO full of it! Paladin77 showed you a bunch of times that your info is wrong!
on Feb 08, 2007
Drmiler

2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons! Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq. I posted copies of the 2002 NIE. If you claim that is not true you are a LIER!


Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that warned invading a Moslem country by the U.S. risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. “Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!” Baker has been on numerous news shows and has testified before Congress that he did provide this advice to GWB BEFORE the invasion.



Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq. He was both interviewed on various News shows and has written articles saying that he gave this advice to Bush and this was the Military Doctrine that Bush ignored called the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.


Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence. Armitage stated publicly he provided this advice to GWB Before the invasion.



Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq. We all know that is correct and the COS was fired for telling Bush he needed the added manpower that both Powell and Baker advised.



Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell. All you have to do is look as Op Plan 1003 (plan to invade Iraq) which was the foundation of the plan Gen Franks used. It called for 500,000 troops when Saddam Fell. General Franks, UNDER GREAT PRESSURE, reduced that to 360,000. Bush sent about 150,000 troops which is LESS then half the lowered requirements Franks developed and less the 1/3 the number the military planners said was needed.

I have just shown that NONE of the issues I raised has been proven wrong. Every one has taken place JUST AS I CLAIMED! You and the others on this Web Sight that support the Idiot in the White House ALL live in some “other world” but not on Planet Earth in 2007 AD!
on Feb 08, 2007
None of which constitutes "high crimes or misdemeanors" so zip it, already, & move on to your next pathetic excuse for another diatribe.
on Feb 08, 2007
2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons! Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq. I posted copies of the 2002 NIE. If you claim that is not true you are a LIER!


Then give me a link to where you posted copies of the NIE! We've been through this before! The 2002 NIE has NOT BEEN FULLY DECLASSIFIED! So "whatever" it is you've posted it NOT the entire NIE. Which by the way is 93 pages long. Less than 1/2 of the material has been declassified.
on Feb 08, 2007
Daiwa

The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime. Wasting ¾ of a Trillion dollars on a war that was not needed and has not made us safer is a High Crime! A Misdemeanor is a crime less then a felony. Bush and Cheney have committed MANY such crimes. The determination of a High Crime or Misdemeanor is what Congress judges it to be.
on Feb 08, 2007
The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime.


Are you willing to hold other Presidents to that standard as well? 
on Feb 08, 2007
Time to take your lies and distortions apart, I am sorry not to have done this sooner but I was sick in bed the last 3 days and did not have the energy to play your silly game.

2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons! Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq. I posted copies of the 2002 NIE. If you claim that is not true you are a LIER!


You told the truth that the NIE said there were not nuclear weapons. Your distortion was simply put making it hard to dispute unless people took the time to deal with your distortion. The president never said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The President did say that we did not know what he has been doing since he kicked out the inspectors and it was safer to assume the worse than assume the best because he was trying to reconstituted his weapons programs. We could not account for the WMD he admitted he had that were not destroyed. So technically you are correct there was not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq. Cute distortion also known as a lie.

Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that warned invading a Moslem country by the U.S. risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. “Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!” Baker has been on numerous news shows and has testified before Congress that he did provide this advice to GWB BEFORE the invasion.


Yes, we risked getting bogged down in a protracted war in the middle east, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that the war began in 1993 and we did not start fighting it until 2003 so we were already bogged down in a war for 10 years we just ignored it until 2001 and did not try to fight it until 2002. You admit that we did not have the troops to fight this war but the enemy was already setting up a new base camp in Iraq to replace the one they were losing in Afghanistan. If we waited for the troop build up you demand we would not have the people to start to kick them out until 2012. So it seems your solution is to wait another 10 years before we go after a serious threat. Forget the 500 tons of yellow cake that can be used to make dirty bombs a plenty. So in those ten years we wait to build up our troops we risk having nuclear material spread around the United States because yellow cake in small batches will not be picked up by detectors unlike atomic bombs. Great military strategy you have there.

Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq. He was both interviewed on various News shows and has written articles saying that he gave this advice to Bush and this was the Military Doctrine that Bush ignored called the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.


Secretary Powel did say overwhelming force was needed. The fact that we took the country and ended the war in 6 weeks tells me that we had the overwhelming force. If you remember when President Marcos was deposed the Filipinos stormed the Presidential palace and other places claiming that it belonged to the people and they looted what they could. The same thing happened when Saddam was taken down. The difference is that we had Iran sending in troops to keep the area destabilized. That was not the war with Iraq it was the war on terror.

Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence. Armitage stated publicly he provided this advice to GWB Before the invasion.


Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage is not all that good since he was wrong about that as evidenced by the 20,000 still photographs and 50 hours video of flowers, candy and cheering people as we entered and took control of the nation. Another lie or distortion told by you. Oh yeah, wasn't he the one that leaked Mr. Wilson's wife to the press then got immunity and let the world think that Mr. Libby did it?

Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq. We all know that is correct and the COS was fired for telling Bush he needed the added manpower that both Powell and Baker advised.


Former Army Chief of Staff was not fired as you continue to lie about. His time was up, he was scheduled to retire and the President wanted someone who would be there to see the war through the end. The people that wanted to use more troops were the ones that Rummy said he wanted to get rid of to revamp the military because the war on terror would not be fought in the conventional way. Since you say you were a colonel in the Army then you would know that the military fights three types of wars. Conventional, where we fight a country or countries. Bush wars where we fight a Vietnam type war and non-conventional wars where there is no nation we are fighting terrorist scattered around the world. If you expertise is conventional war and we are fighting a non-conventional war you are not equipped to fight this type of war. But you would know this with you extensive military experience right? I mean you are a colonel and I was just a sergeant and I know this.

Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell. All you have to do is look as Op Plan 1003 (plan to invade Iraq) which was the foundation of the plan Gen Franks used. It called for 500,000 troops when Saddam Fell. General Franks, UNDER GREAT PRESSURE, reduced that to 360,000. Bush sent about 150,000 troops which is LESS then half the lowered requirements Franks developed and less the 1/3 the number the military planners said was needed.


The Gulf war was a different type of war. You should know this because of your extensive military knowledge. What destroyed Saddam in the Gulf war was the fact that he was fighting with WWI tactics against WWII tactics. Your suggestion is to fight a non-conventional war with WWII tactics. Different war different tactics unless you want to lose the war.

I have just shown that NONE of the issues I raised has been proven wrong. Every one has taken place JUST AS I CLAIMED! You and the others on this Web Sight that support the Idiot in the White House ALL live in some “other world” but not on Planet Earth in 2007 AD!


All were proven wrong, just cause you quote facts does not make your conclusions factual. You distort the facts to fit your conclusions. You lie when you can’t find fact to back up your conclusions. You ignore any facts brought to you that don’t agree with your lies. You have no intellectual honesty. Not once have I seen you admit to being wrong even when the facts prove it and the articles you quote are proven to say the opposite of your conclusion. You can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
on Feb 08, 2007
The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime. Wasting ¾ of a Trillion dollars on a war that was not needed and has not made us safer is a High Crime! A Misdemeanor is a crime less then a felony. Bush and Cheney have committed MANY such crimes. The determination of a High Crime or Misdemeanor is what Congress judges it to be.


You have no concept of the American legal system. Once again your ignorance shines through.
on Feb 08, 2007
IslandDog

YES

However the ONLY President that Congress can impeach is the one currently in office.

Paladin77

We are not talking about the American legal system we are talking about removing a sitting President from office by the Congress! You are the one that does not, as usual, know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!


on Feb 08, 2007
"2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons!Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq.Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that invading a Moslem country by the US risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq.Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence.Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq.Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell."


What you don't say is how that is grounds for impeachment. It doesn't meet any standard that I have ever seen. If it was Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, and others would have been eligible. You'll say no, but all you are accusing Bush of doing is making bad decisions about why to enter a war, and how to enter it.

At this point I have to assume you KNOW that your argument doesn't meet any legal standard for impeachment. You know that no crime has been committed, and that the Congress when into this with both eyes open, nothing hidden from them. There's no way, not a chance in hell, that Bush is going to be impeached. Waste your time with your fantasies if you want.
on Feb 08, 2007
We are not talking about the American legal system we are talking about removing a sitting President from office by the Congress! You are the one that does not, as usual, know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!


So the impeachment process that it presided over by the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court is not part of the American legal system? Please explain this to me. Poor ignorant me was under the impression that all laws are based on the constitution of the United States. Or are you tossing out the constitution as well as the laws written by Congress. How nice of you. Does this mean that you are now in charge of the planet as well? Are you sure you are an American? I don't mean to insult you but you say you spent 30 years in the Army yet you don't know basic military strategy, you say you were in the private sector for an additioonal 30 years but you don't seem to understand how business works, you say you are an american but you don't seem to know the basics of our laws or how the government functions.

It seems the only justification you have for impeachment is that you don't like him. If that were the case then there is not a president ever that would not be impeached. What laws did ne break. For Mr. Johnson there was a clear set of laws he was charged with and he survived by one vote. For Mr. Clinton he lied under oath and survived conviction as well. He was however found guilty of breaking the law and lost his law license. So again I ask you what laws did Mr. Bush break?
on Feb 08, 2007
Paladin77

"So technically you are correct there were not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq." Without the threat of nuclear weapons there would not have been a resolution to invade Iraq. That is why Bush and Cheney used the scare tactic of the Mushroom Clouds to get their way. Congress would not have approved invading Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions or because Saddam was an evil dictator.

"Yes, we risked getting bogged down in a protracted war in the middle east, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that the war began in 1993 and we did not start fighting it until 2003 so we were already bogged down in a war for 10 years we just ignored it until 2001 and did not try to fight it until 2002." The issue was INVADING Iraq that Baker was warning against. We had not invaded Iraq in 1993 because Bush 41 was a lot smarter then his SON.


"Secretary Powel did say overwhelming force was needed. The fact that we took the country and ended the war in 6 weeks tells me that we had the overwhelming force” We had the force needed to defeat Saddam but not to secure a country of 26 Million. That is what the 500,000 troops were needed to do as the Op Plan 1003 clearly stated. It said that WHEN Saddam fell we needed 500,000 troops to SECURE the country. Bush Ignored that phase and placed our military in a position of danger without the troops needed to secure the country. 95% of the deaths and casualties took place AFTER Saddam was out of power because Bush failed to send the troops needed for the job they were given. That makes Bush responsible for the deaths of our troops.


"The Gulf war was a different type of war." The Iraq was a very conventional war. There was a phase to destroy the military and bring down the civilian government and a second phase to establish and maintain order and the second phase required many more boots on the ground. There no senior military officer that has not admitted that we NEVER had the force levels to establish and maintain control after Saddam fell and that has prevented a return to order. The military planners knew it would take many more troops to establish order in a country of 26 million especially given the history of sectarian violence among the major factions in Iraq. They were kept in check by brute force under Saddam and when he was deposed and we did not have the troops to go into all the cities where the former Saddam military fled, we set the stage for what we see EVERY day in Iraq!

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You have a view of the leaf on the tree. I have the view that looks at the entire landscape. I was not promoted to Colonel in 19 years, given three commands and selected to attend the Army War College by accident!


Impeachment is carried out by the legislative branch. A bill of impeachment is brought by the House and the president is tried by the Senate.
The Chief justice is there as the procedural official in the Senate trial of a President or Vice President. It requires a 2/3 vote of those present in the senate to uphold the impeachment.
13 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last