Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on November 8, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics


I have just read Curveball by Bob Drogin. For anyone who still believes we were in danger from Saddam and were justified to invade Iraq, please read this book.

This book tells how the environment created by George W. Bush allowed one low level Iraqi engineer to weave a fairy tale that as David Kay told Bush, “The United States has gone to war to chase a mirage”.

This was the person that was the ONLY source of the most important justification Powell used to invade Iraq in his February 5, 2003 speech before the U.N. It was all a lie and even though the CIA was presented with the evidence that the story of the Mobile Bio Labs was not true, the attitude of two top leaders of the CIA concluded the decision to invade Iraq was made and no intelligence would take us from that course.

When you read how David Kay, who was one of the strongest proponents of the WMD in Iraq before the invasion, uncovers one of the most fantastic snow jobs in History you will be astounded. Top people at the CIA pushed this lie because of the fact that Bush and Cheney sought to show the world that Saddam had WMD in 2002. The facts that David Kay uncovered were presented to Bush, Cheney, Rice and Card in April 2004 at the White House. The truth was that after 1991, Saddam did not attempt to produce any Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. The entire WMD was a fraud!

These revelations caused the resignation of George Tenet and John McLaughlin the two top people at the CIA. It ended the career of Tyler Drumhiller, a top CIA operative, who tried to get the truth about this unbelievable fraud to be acknowledged by Tenet and McLaughlin before Bush invaded Iraq. When General Powell was informed of the fact that the so called PROOF he used at the UN was an elaborate series of lies, he was furious. This revelation prompted him to later say his UN Presentation was the low point in his career. However the top CIA chiefs believed Bush had made up his mind and no facts or intelligence would alter his march into Baghdad. They did not acknowledge the lies until April 2004 after David Kay and his team uncovered the series of lies that caused America to follow a MIRAGE to war.

Comments (Page 8)
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10 
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007The UN said DO NOT invade Iraq and we did it without their OK and without a declaration of War by Congress!!!!! sorry we don't answer to the UN. the following countries and groups were getting rich off of Iraq and Saddam so of course they didn't want us to attack. France, Germany, and oh yea the united nationshow come everyone on the planet including congress says that congress declared war. and your the only one who says that they didn't. this makes you one person correct and the other 7 billion people wrong. i don't think so.


Better look at the Iraq War Resolution. It said Bush could use force as a LAST RESORT and was not a declaration of war like in WWII.

This is the resolution:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
The Resolution als
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (The Intel that was ignored showed that this was not true)

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." (This was also a LIE. there were no operational elements in IRAQ until AFTER we invaded Iraq)

Iraq's "continuing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. (There was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. Another LIE)
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

NOTE IT AUTHOURZED the use of force. It did not direct Bush to invade Iraq nor does the resolution say a State of WAR exists between the United States and Iraq!
The resolution also says that Bush CAN use force “to defend against the continuing threat posed by Iraq”. Iraq posed NO threat as the Pentagon clearly said in 2002 that Iraq was not capable of conducting military action against ANYONE except in the CENTRAL SECTION OF IRAQ. HOW in the HELL could Iraq have been a “threat to the U.S.” 5,000 miles away?
on Nov 15, 2007
NOTE IT AUTHOURZED the use of force. It did not direct Bush to invade Iraq nor does the resolution say a State of WAR exists between the United States and Iraq!


ok where was he supposed to use this force isreal?
on Nov 15, 2007
now here this

you are authorized to use force against Saddam and Iraq. but you cannot attack.
on Nov 15, 2007
you idiot this resolution(declaration of war) was passed a year before we attacked. Saddam was given up to the last moment to comply. he didn't.
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007NOTE IT AUTHOURZED the use of force. It did not direct Bush to invade Iraq nor does the resolution say a State of WAR exists between the United States and Iraq! ok where was he supposed to use this force isreal?


It did not say he was to use force any ware. It ALLOWED and DIRECTED the use of FORCE to defend against a threat that did not exist! The Pentagon report clearly said Saddam was no threat in 2002.
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply | | DeleteReply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007you idiot this resolution(declaration of war) was passed a year before we attacked. Saddam was given up to the last moment to comply. he didn't.


Saddam had allowed the UN Inspectors back into Iraq. Had Bush allowed them to complete their work they would have proven there was NO WMD. Three days after Powell gave his address to the UN, David Kay and his inspectors found the sight where Curveball said the Bio Labs were built. They found that his story was a LIE. That was about 6 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq. Tenet was told that the Bio Lab story was not true but Tenet said Bush would not listen and that he was going to invade Iraq no MATTER WHAT the FACTS SHOWED! Tenet had also told Bush the Yellow Cake and Al Tube stories were also not true and there was no evidence of a Nuclear Program. The ONLY WMD element that was not disputed when Bush invaded Iraq was Gas and it turned out that was so old that it was no longer viable as a weapon!

There was NO reason why Bush had to invade Iraq in March 2003. They were not poised to attack anyone. There was not new threat and the UN was back in Iraq looking for the WMD. Bush did not want to wait for the facts. He as Tenet said was going to invade Iraq NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS SHOWED!
on Nov 15, 2007
NOTE IT AUTHOURZED the use of force. It


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:


on Nov 15, 2007
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007NOTE IT AUTHOURZED the use of force. It The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:


NONE of the REASONS DIRECTED Bush to use Force.
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


It did not say by invading Iraq!
on Nov 15, 2007
now tell me oh stupid one how do you remove the leader of another country
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007now tell me oh stupid one how do you remove the leader of another country


Supporting internal factions to depose the leader, support other Moslem countries to take action or in extreme cases assassinate him O' Stupid ONE! What you do not do is invade the country and put 160,000 troops at risk!
on Nov 15, 2007
Supporting internal factions to depose the leader, support other Moslem countries to take action or in extreme cases assassinate him


it is illegal for the united states to assassinate a countries leaders.


and only a coward would hire someone else to fight his fight for him.


which proves what i have said in the past. you sir are a coward.
on Nov 15, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 15, 2007Supporting internal factions to depose the leader, support other Moslem countries to take action or in extreme cases assassinate him it is illegal for the united states to assassinate a countries leaders.and only a coward would hire someone else to fight his fight for him.which proves what i have said in the past. you sir are a coward.


Are saying it was better to have 3,800 troops KILLED and 28,000 INJURED? It that is you position you are an ASS that should be sent into exile like the “man without a Country"
on Nov 15, 2007
and again sir you are a coward. do not know who you bribed or black mailed to be called a col. but there is no way in the world you earned it.
10 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10