COL Gene COL Gene

WHY Bush and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED!

WHY Bush and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED!



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.
48,084 views 184 replies
Reply #126 Top
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. We were not in any danger in 2002 and had Bush allowed the UN Weapons inspectors to complete their work we would have learned that Saddam had no WND!


Funny, All of congess had access to this report prior to the vote to authorize the President to use force. It must have convinced someone. lol
Reply #127 Top
If the vote were held today, do you believe it would pass? You bet your ass it would not. Bush disregarded the advice of people who knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. He had NO experience in Foreign or Military policy and went ahead and did it HIS WAY. LOOK what that has cost our country. Bush has done more harm to America on so many fronts that it is hard to grasp the extent of his damage. I do not believe that Congress saw all the Intelligence. Gen Powell said he would NOT have made the speech on 5 Feb 2003 if he knew then what he knows now. WHY? When people like Gen Zinni and the three CIA Section Chiefs say Bush manipulated the Intel I believe them. They have nothing to gain by lying. On the other hand, given the way Iraq and the Moslem world have gone, Bush and Cheney have every reason to try and protect their asses. That is why Cheney is not to testify at the Libby Trial.
Reply #128 Top
" If the vote were held today, do you believe it would pass? You bet your ass it would not."


Obviously not. Not because they gave more of a damn one way or the other about Iraq, but because their pollsters and analysts would tell them to vote the other way. You're deluded if you think they give a damn about anything else.
Reply #129 Top
I do not believe that Congress saw all the Intelligence.


What you believe does not matter. You were not there so your opinion over this is invalid. Grow up already.

Gen Powell said he would NOT have made the speech on 5 Feb 2003 if he knew then what he knows now.


LOL, if I new then what I know now I would have bought stocks in Apple before the iPod came out. I would have won many lotteries, I would have never eaten that damn burrito. Do you get my point here? This is the dumbest thing anyone could say. It's obvious that many people would have done many things differently had they know the end results would not be what they wanted. Man, and you made it to Col rank with this idiotic way of thinking? No wonder we lost in Vietnam. Idiots like you trying to see what was not really there and trying to confuse people with uneducated, unresearched garbage you call truth. I see why you work as a non profit organization, you don't know how economics work so its easier to just do it for free.
Reply #130 Top
This thread just gets funnier every day.
Reply #131 Top
Bakerstreet

If you really believe that the vote to allow the Iraq war would not pass today because as you posted, "because their pollsters and analysts would tell them to vote the other way” YOU are so far from reality that there is NO HOPE for you and anyone like you that would profess such a belief. It would not be approved because all the down sides that Foreign Policy Experts warned against have come true. It would be voted down from the results on the ground both in Iraq and thought the Moslem World. It would have been voted down because Saddam was NO DANGER to America. It would be voted down because IT WAS A MISTAKE!

Charles C

Gen Powell made those statements because the information he was fed by Bush was not complete or accurate. He was used by Bush and Cheney to HYPE the danger from Iraq in 2002 !!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #132 Top
If the vote were held today, do you believe it would pass?


Yes, I do. Politics aside the threat was there and valid. Keep in mind that if there was no vote until today we would just be in Afghanistan, Saddam and his delightful children would still be alive, Saddam would still be supporting terrorist and according to the NIE of 2002 this would be the year Saddam would have a nuclear weapon or two to give AQ at one of the three training camps in Iraq. I would think that you col Gene would be crying that Mr. Bush should be impeached for not doing anything to stop any of it.

He had NO experience in Foreign or Military policy and went ahead and did it HIS WAY. LOOK what that has cost our country.


Dr. Rice a world respected expert on foreign policy and international affairs, the Vice-President had years of experience in foreign policy and the military. Remember the Gulf war? Think back as to who was Secretary of Defense for that war. The Secretary of State, General Powel saw all the intelligence plus has his own intelligence organization outside the CIA and DIA. So unless they lied to their boss the information seems to go with the other agencies assessment as well as the information gathered by Germany, France, UK, Spain, Russia, and Italy to name a few. Against that you have three retired Generals, and three section chiefs that are still unnamed by you. Please explain why the President should go against the conventional wisdom to follow 6 people that are out of the loop. CIA analyst V. Plame didn’t report any discrepancy on the WMD’s and that was her job before she retired. You know her better as Mr. Wilsons wife. Had Mr. Bush followed your beliefs they would want to impeach the man for not listening to the government experts.

Bush and Cheney have every reason to try and protect their asses. That is why Cheney is not to testify at the Libby Trial.


You better read the news. The Vice=President as already said he would testify at the trial if needed.
Reply #133 Top
Saddam was NO DANGER to America. It would be voted down because IT WAS A MISTAKE!


Why do you keep repeating the same lie every day? Do you think that if you say it enough time you might believe it yourself?
Reply #134 Top
Paladin77

Read your own post:

well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. We were not in any danger in 2002 and had Bush allowed the UN Weapons inspectors to complete their work we would have learned that Saddam had no WND!


WRONG again fool!


U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

Weapons inspectors, shown here searching a test site in February, have been advised to leave Iraq.
By Suhaib Salem, Reuters

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.

"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.

U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.

No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the nuclear agency would wait for Security Council guidance later Monday before deciding whether to pull out its inspectors.

The teams, which returned to Iraq on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year absence, drew up contingency plans to evacuate even before their redeployment.

"A lot depends on the Iraqis," a senior U.N. inspector told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "If they let us use aircraft to get out, we could be gone in 48 hours or even less. If they won't let us fly out, we would have to drive to a border, and that could mean an eight-hour journey across hot desert. It would take longer, but we would get out."

Inspectors have experience in getting out of Iraq in a hurry: In December 1998, they pulled out on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams.

There have been some concerns that the Iraqis might hold the inspectors as human shields in case of a conflict. But Iraq's foreign minister appeared to play down those fears in a live television interview on the al-Arabiya Arabic satellite channel Sunday night.

"The inspectors came by a decision of the Security Council, which decides on their departure," Naji Sabri said.


Link


Link


In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[35] In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.[36][37] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq



#125 by COL Gene
Tue, February 13, 2007 7:52 PM





Bakerstreet

Bush, Cheney and their minions are liars and they had NO BUSINESS telling the press that someone was a CIA Agent. The Bush administration is ROTTEN to the CORE!


Eight witnesses testified one way and Libby's statements to the federal Prosecutor was 180 about. Someone LIED GUESS WHO?


And btw... you're an IDIOT to the core.
Reply #135 Top
Bush will never be impeached.  Is this so hard to grasp?

The lies you cliam have NEVER been proven, you fail to provide proof of your accusations about the Libby trial, it's over....move on.


Reply #136 Top
Bush will never be impeached. Is this so hard to grasp?


Not true, the Dems have until August before the election cycle dominates America. So col Gene you still have hope. Not much hope but some.
Reply #137 Top
I hope the poll I saw yesterday is correct. It said 70% of voters will not vote to reelect a member of Congress in 2008 that does not vote to condemn the Bush Surge in Iraq. If the GOP play their cards right, we will have a VETO Proof Congress in January 2009 and it will not matter who is the next president!
Reply #138 Top
Are you saying that there won't be enough Democrats for the new Republican President to worry about?
Reply #139 Top
Paladin77

No stupid. The 70% will be voting FOR Democrats in 2008 if the GOP continues supporting Bush. He is on TV today telling us that the war in Iraq will help prevent attacked s in the U.S. Bush better look at what his own intelligence agencies have said about the Iraq war. They have concluded we are LESS save NOT more safe because we have increased the number of Moslems that will be willing to attack our country in the future because we invaded Iraq. Bush is like a BLIND man and a well lit room. He refuses to see things as they are but as he wants them to be.

The only thing better then the November 2006 election will be the November 2008 election!
Reply #140 Top
Paladin77

No stupid. The 70% will be voting FOR Democrats in 2008 if the GOP continues supporting Bush. He is on TV today telling us that the war in Iraq will help prevent attacked s in the U.S. Bush better look at what his own intelligence agencies have said about the Iraq war. They have concluded we are LESS save NOT more safe because we have increased the number of Moslems that will be willing to attack our country in the future because we invaded Iraq. Bush is like a BLIND man and a well lit room. He refuses to see things as they are but as he wants them to be.

The only thing better then the November 2006 election will be the November 2008 election!


"You're" the stupid one. Answer this, if you can. How many attacks have been made to US holdings "anywhere" in the world since 9/11? None right? So according to you we're not safer?

Something else. Watch that 70% of voters FALL to a LOT less if the democrats nominate Hillary.
Reply #141 Top
drmiler

You are not arguing with me you are arguing with the NIE which clearly stated that the Iraq war has made us LESS Safe.

It is not that there have not been attempts including several that Bush claims were foiled in the U.S. What has changed is our efforts to better defend our selves and the efforts of other countries to defend against these attacks. The fact remains, that our actions by invading Iraq has enabled the radical elements in the Islamic Movement to recruit more people that are willing to attack us in the future. We have not solved the base cause for the attacks just provided a more effective defense. The problem as Bush has said we must be able to deflect 100% of the attempts in order to prevent another 9/11 or worse. The failure to secure our border and ports is just increasing the likelihood of some group being successful in the future. WHY has BUSH not secured our borders in 5 years? We can close the borders with Iran and Syria in Iraq but refuse to secure our borders. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #142 Top
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Because you're an idiot!
Reply #143 Top
The 70% will be voting FOR Democrats in 2008 if the GOP continues supporting Bush.


LOL.  Another ridiculous poll you take as fact.  The democrats plan to undermine the war and our troops will backfire as most of their attempts to bash Bush do.  Democrats still can't offer anything but criticism and propaganda for our enemeis. 

The only thing better then the November 2006 election will be the November 2008 election!


I bet you would support Hillary and her socialist agenda.  Am I right?




Reply #144 Top
drmiler

You have the cap on being the village Idiot. I love it what you Bushies can now give a rational answer for the failure of your BOY!
Reply #145 Top
I will not support anyone that would continue the failed foreign, military and domestic policies of the past 6 years!
Reply #146 Top
Reply #147 Top
I will not support anyone that would continue the failed foreign, military and domestic policies of the past 6 years!


I am confused, I thought you were voting Democrat but if what you say is true then you are voting Republican.
Reply #148 Top
Paladin77

The policy we have been following and that has failed for the past 4 years in Iraq and the greater Middle-East is the Bush policy!!!!!!!!! NOTHING the GOP has supported in Iraq, Economy, Social security, Energy, health, education, deficit etc has worked to help the vast majority of Americans!
Reply #149 Top
What exactly have the dems done in opposition. I think they've finally decided to vote to a non-binding, verbal announcement of their condemnation. Whoopee. Someday you'll see that your politicians aren't much different than ours. Issues are for speeches.
Reply #150 Top
Bakertreet

The GOP and Bush have set the policy. The Democrats have been prevented from enacting any policy by the GOP and Bush. All that has taken place in Iraq, The Middle East and on the domestic side is due to the policies put fourth by Bush and enacted by the GOP controlled congress! We will see what the Democrats pass and if the GOP in the Senate or Bush prevents change that the voters said they wanted in the November 2006 election. It might take another election for the American People to get the changes they want.