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 6)
13 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Feb 09, 2007
"No it does not require PROOF before hand that a crime was committed ONLY enough evidence to show Probable Cause."


...

evidence

Main Entry:
1ev·i·dence Listen to the pronunciation of 1evidence
Pronunciation:
\ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices


How about this. What if we had started an impeachment process on Clinton concerning the death of Vince Foster? Sure, there was no proof of a crime, but according to you all we need is suspicion. There was definitely a lot of that, and the circumstances were questionable.

Why not just have a constant impeachment on the President then, in case there is a crime we don't know about? If you don't need any evidence that a crime has been committed, then one could have been committed at any time. Any presidential act could violate some obscure law, so we'd better have an impeachment committee pouring over everything they do.

Come on. These are issues that are not well defined, in circumstances that the US has never had to deal with before. Sure, mistakes might be made, but until you can show me clear-cut circumstances that every other court doesn't differ on, you don't have a point. The courts already said the programs could continue until a final decision is made.

We spent $30 million on Clinton's prosecution and impeachment. By all means, lets waste months and months and make the 2007 legislative year the equivalent of one of your flamefests...
on Feb 10, 2007
a: an outward sign : indication-- The dander Bush claimed from Saddam has been shown not to have existed in 2002-2003.

b: something that furnishes proof: testimony - Bush admitts he did not follow the FISA Law that was enacted to to provide the way for the President to conduct Wire Taps. Since that law was in force and NOT ruled Unconstitutional, Bush was obligated to obey that law. He admitted he did not obey that law.

Statements by three Former CIA Chiefs and Gen. Zinni, all of who had FIRST hand knowledge of available intelligence about the danger Saddam posed to the U.S. have stated that Bush and Cheney CHERRY PICKED the available intelligence which in essence was presenting a misleading picture of the REAL danger to the U.S. Then Bush took us to WAR predicated on those arguments while keeping any Intelligence that did not support his assessment that we were in danger from Saddam Classified and that meant Congress was NOT made aware of the real danger before voting to allow Bush to invade Iraq. That act has killed 3,100 American Military.

The testimony in the Libby trial clearly shown that Cheney was behind the outing of Mrs. Wilson as a way to attack Amb. Wilson for concluding that some of the intelligence that Bush used to support the nuclear threat of Saddam was false.

The threshold of facts required to charge a person is FAR lower then the threshold required to convict. There is more then enough evidence to charge BOTH Bush and Cheney with Bills of Impeachment. It remains to be scene if there is enough evidence for the Senate to convict. We need to insure that Senate has the opportunity to meet their Constitutional responsibilities given the evidence that Bush and Cheney have violated many laws over the past 6 years!!!

We have as you stated—Indications, Testimony and statements of high level officials with first had knowledge of what Intelligence was available and HOW Bush and Cheney used that Intelligence. We have an admission by Bush that he did not obey a valid law to obtain wire taps. His contention that he had the power to violate that law may be his defense but NO court has ruled that argument is valid. That is what would be considered in the Senate during the actual trial. Time for the House to bring Bills of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney and turn it over to the Senate.

on Feb 10, 2007
I really wish I could bring a Bill of Impeachment against you.....you have been shown OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND...Col...you are a reject....simple as that....
on Feb 10, 2007
Anyone that defends the actions of Bush and Cheney does not have a brain in their head. Four years in Iraq and the killing gets worse all the time. Every day the deficit gets bigger and bigger. Enjoy your dream world.
on Feb 10, 2007
"The threshold of facts required to charge a person is FAR lower then the threshold required to convict."


You know better. Deciding what intelligence is valid and what isn't is the job of the President and his staff. He didn't decide in the same way you would have, but if you say he has to follow the orders of the intelligence wing of our government then it isn't the President in charge, it is the intelligence wing.

"The testimony in the Libby trial clearly shown that Cheney was behind the outing of Mrs. Wilson as a way to attack Amb. Wilson for concluding that some of the intelligence that Bush used to support the nuclear threat of Saddam was false."


And the President has the right to combat propaganda any way he wants. You know good and well he has the power to declassify material and control our intelligence gathering resources. If they wanted Plame outed, they could have outed her. That's why they haven't been able to convict Libby for THAT, and have to get him on this other silliness.

In the end if they prove everything you say about Plame, it still isn't a crime. Period. It would be if I did it, or if you did it, or if the NYT did it, but not for the top-down executive branch of the government.
on Feb 10, 2007
b: something that furnishes proof: testimony - Bush admitts he did not follow the FISA Law that was enacted to to provide the way for the President to conduct Wire Taps. Since that law was in force and NOT ruled Unconstitutional, Bush was obligated to obey that law. He admitted he did not obey that law.


Now put this against the "Patriot Act" and it falls on it's face. Which is why the democrats and the general left wing have left this one alone.
on Feb 10, 2007
These Col Gene threads are the funniest bits of comedy since Abbott and Costello. It's always amusing watching people try to argue with a madman.
on Feb 11, 2007
Bakerstreet

“If you say he has to follow the orders of the intelligence wing of our government then it isn't the President in charge, it is the intelligence wing.”

It has NOTHING to do with Bush following orders. The purpose of Intelligence is to collect and process information to help develop SOUND policy. That is NOT what Bush and his minions were about. Bush from the very outset of his term as president wanted to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. The REAL reason Bush had for this action may never be fully known.

The process Bush used was to start with a policy, the removal of Saddam from power, and then looked for intelligence that helped bolster that policy. When intelligence did not fit the pre selected policy it was kept classified wherever possible and if information became public knowledge that did not support the predetermined policy of Removing Saddam from power, the source was discredited i.e. the Wilson trip to Africa. That has been proven by the experts that were at the center of the intelligence collection and processing like the three former CIA Section chiefs that have clearly stated that Bush cherry pickled the available intelligence. That is what Gen. Zinni said as a person that saw ALL the intelligence and said that what Bush and Cheney was telling Congress and the American people DID NOT fit with the intelligence that was available and that he saw. That is what the inspector general of DOD just concluded about Doug Feith’s office. He sifted through the intelligence and used ONLY that which he could use to BOLSTER the policy choice Bush made.

The Bush Administration did not use all the available intelligence and did not employ the advice of the most experienced and knowledgeable people gave him about the probable outcome of his policy to invade Iraq. Even though Bush and Cheney had NO foreign Policy Experience they ignored the advice of people like Powell, Baker and Armitage for example. Powell has said that the biggest mistake of his career was the speech he gave on Feb. 5 2003 before the UN about the danger Saddam supposedly posed to the United States. He was fed only SOME of the information and was used by Bush and Cheney to sell their policy that was not developed from the REAL threat posed by Saddam but by a contrived threat that ignored ALL intelligence that did not support that policy and ignored all the conceptual weakness of the argument of America invading Iraq--- depose Saddam and would be received as liberators and bring stability via western type democracies. It is not that ALL the intelligence was wrong. Only the Intelligence Bush CHOSE to user was WRONG. Most of the intelligence that did not support the choice Bush made to invade Iraq and depose Saddam has been shown to be correct. Time has also shown that all the warnings from Baker, Powell and Armitage were also correct.
Bush made a choice and then used only that advice and intelligence that supported his preconceived policy choice. The problem is that Bush was DEAD WRONG and his lack of Foreign Policy experience is clearly evident in the consequences of his policy!
on Feb 11, 2007
Bakerstreet

The truth does not make your BOY look to good!

on Feb 11, 2007
The truth does not make your BOY look to good!


This supposes that you actually use the truth instead of half truths and distortions.
on Feb 11, 2007
That was a long rant, there Col, but it doesn't say anything that remotely approaches an impeachable offense. Nada. Johnson, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, anyone could have been impeached by that standard, and many were MORE deserving. You'd lose a president every time we have a war wherein the Congress is controlled by the other party.
on Feb 11, 2007
More about how the White House lied:

Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House
By TOM RAUM (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 11, 2007 4:13 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.

The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.

The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.

Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.

What has emerged, instead, is:

-a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

-a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

-top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.
on Feb 11, 2007
Killing American Military in an a war that was not justified is more then what is needed to remove Bush from office!
on Feb 11, 2007
" Killing American Military in an a war that was not justified is more then what is needed to remove Bush from office!'


Then we should stop celebrating Lincoln's presidency. He killed a heck of a lot more.
on Feb 11, 2007
Bakerstreet

Only a FOOL would equate our civil war with Iraq. No matter what you and the other misguided Bush supporters on this Blog Site say, Bush sent our brave military into a war with a country that was NO DANGER to America. The dead and injured are in vain because there was no danger and NO reason to have asked them for the ultimate sacrifice. The American Civil War to preserve a union that has resulted in the greatest nation in the history of this world. Not only was America NOT in danger from Iraq but this war has actually made us less safe by creating many more radicals like the ones that brought the terror of 9/11 to our country. This war was not only unjustified but a failure by making the world more dangerous for our country!
13 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last