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 7)
13 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
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!


WRONG FOOL! Dead wrong. "If" that were the case President Bush would be gone. And he ain't!

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!


Forget the civil war. Try WW2....Germany was no direct threat to us.
on Feb 11, 2007
Only a FOOL would equate our civil war with Iraq.


Your right cause there is no civil war in Iraq. lol
on Feb 11, 2007
It's amazing the amount of time Gene wastes on this, keeping all these threads going, posting the same shit to every one of them, all of which end up in the same place.
on Feb 12, 2007
You do realize that there were riots in the NORTH during the civil war, and against it. If you think that the civil war was an agreed upon, popular war, and that Lincoln was a hero at the time, you haven't studied your history.
on Feb 12, 2007
drmiler

Killing American military in a War that was not justified and was run in a way that caused more American casualties because we did not send the troops needed to PREVENT the sectarian violence that is causing the American deaths? You are FULL OF BULL and it coming out of your ears. If a President causing the unneeded death of our military is not reason for impeachment, then WHY were Impeachment charges brought against Clinton for lying about his sex life? His lies about Monica did not cause a single American military Death. The Bush war in Iraq has caused 3,100 dead, 23,000 injured and cost $3/4 of a trillion dollars.
on Feb 12, 2007
drmiler

Hitler occupying Europe and developing Jets, Rockets and Nuclear weapons was not a threat to the U.S. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND FOOL!
on Feb 12, 2007
Plaldin77

Only a FOOL would equate our civil war with Iraq.


Your right cause there is no civil war in Iraq. lol

Keep going-- You show with every post just how out of touch you are. Even Bush has acknowledged the majority of the violence is between the factions within Iraq. That is a Civil War. The factions in Iraq are fighting to CONTROL the country and its wealth (oil). It is also a war over different religious factions.
on Feb 12, 2007
Keep going-- You show with every post just how out of touch you are. Even Bush has acknowledged the majority of the violence is between the factions within Iraq. That is a Civil War. The factions in Iraq are fighting to CONTROL the country and its wealth (oil). It is also a war over different religious factions.


Yeah right you are still full of lies. You still have not proven your point and the people fighting for control are the Government of Iraq and the ones that lost power when Saddam lost power. Less than a third of the population trying to bring back Saddmas idea of good. No body but the losers want that.
on Feb 12, 2007
drmiler

Hitler occupying Europe and developing Jets, Rockets and Nuclear weapons was not a threat to the U.S. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND FOOL!


And Saddam was developing nukes! Now "who's" the fool? You know something? I think you're the stupidist, smart person on earth.
on Feb 12, 2007
Drmiler

WHO said Saddam was developing Nukes? Intel and the facts on the ground prove Saddam was not attempting to build Nuclear weapons in 2002. Hitler had developed Rockets and jet aircraft. He was also well along in the development of nuclear weapons. He also had a powerful Army that had occupied several countries like France and Poland before we got into the war. If you want a comparable war to Iraq, Look at Vietnam. Another Civil War we should never have become involved in. The irony is that in Vietnam it was the Democrats that made the mistake and now the Republicans repeated the same mistakes in Iraq.


Paladin77

The Shiites and Sunnis are both fighting each other. Each want control of Iraq and that is a Civil War.
on Feb 12, 2007
We expended huge amounts of resources fighting Hitler in Europe. With those resources intact, and Hitler expended trying to hold Europe and bouncing off Russia every time it snowed... there would have been no way, no way possible that he would have been a problem here.

Until he got nuclear weapons. But then that was a big ole question mark, and not even one that was really considered in 1941 much. Much like Hussein, "super weapons" were just a hazy possibility that no one could really stomach. Sometimes the possibility of making a mistake offensively is nothing compared to the horrors if you sit passively.
on Feb 12, 2007
Bakerstreet

The Manhattan project disproves the idea that "Super Weapons" were a as you put it a Hazy Possibility. The danger to this country from both Germany and Her ally Japan was why we entered WWII remember Dec 7, 1941. To equate Iraq with WWII takes someone that has no grasp of reality or knowledge of history. The United States was in NO danger from Saddam in 2002 which was NOT the case in 1941 from Japan and Germany! Bush fabricated the danger from Saddam and took us to a WAR that was not needed to protect our country and which has made our security situation WORSE by enabling those that conducted 9/11 to recruit more radicals that could attack us in the future!

Every warning that Bush was given about invading Iraq has been proven accurate. Bush is a failure and a person that has admitted he does not read books, had no foreign policy or military experience and ignored those with that experience. He like anyone that defends him is an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Feb 12, 2007
"The Manhattan project disproves the idea that "Super Weapons" were a as you put it a Hazy Possibility. "


Again, you show your ignorance of history. The further Hitler got into the war the more he gave up on the super weapons. He had functioning jet technology in his hands and instead of putting the resources into perfecting it decided to throw more of what was then conventional at his enemies.

The "nuclear bomb" Hitler is supposed to have made destroyed... 500 square meters, most of which was probably destroyed by the detonation charge, if the event ever happened at all. We weren't in any more danger from Hitler's nuclear capability than we were from Hussein's.

That said, what prevented both Hussein and Hitler from having a nuclear program was that they had to devote their limited resources to defense of their conventional efforts. Sure, had Hitler kept his agreements with the Soviets, hung onto his first few conquests, and then devoted himself to super weapons, it would have been horrific.

As it would have been with Hussein, who had been trying for nukes since the 80's. It's easy to sit back and poo poo any correlation, but in reality the two aren't very different. Had we allowed Hussein to take Saudi Arabia and a couple of other neighbors the way we allowed Hitler, who knows how the situation would have progressed.

Now, Hussein has done his little dance, so I guess you can Monday morning quarterback, huh? I bet a few million people in Europe during the 40's would have liked that ability. Had we simply contained Hitler, we would have seen a North Korea situation about 50 years early. Containment is foolish, but it's the go-to solution for people like the Col.
on Feb 12, 2007
Every warning that Bush was given about invading Iraq has been proven accurate.


Yes, this is true. Saddam was a threat, Saddam was providing safe haven for terrorist, Saddam was trying to rebuild his WMD programs. Thanks for finally admitting it.
on Feb 12, 2007
Drmiler

WHO said Saddam was developing Nukes? Intel and the facts on the ground prove Saddam was not attempting to build Nuclear weapons in 2002. Hitler had developed Rockets and jet aircraft. He was also well along in the development of nuclear weapons. He also had a powerful Army that had occupied several countries like France and Poland before we got into the war. If you want a comparable war to Iraq, Look at Vietnam. Another Civil War we should never have become involved in. The irony is that in Vietnam it was the Democrats that made the mistake and now the Republicans repeated the same mistakes in Iraq.


Want to talk some "more" stupid cap? I quote "direct" from the 2002 NIE:


[From October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)
13 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last