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.
47,896 views 184 replies
Reply #26 Top
drmiler

"Knock off the crap col. It's BS!”

You are the one full of Bull Shit. I have posted the sections of the 2002 NIE that clearly shows that Bush knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons in 2002 even though he and Draft Dogger Dick were claiming we were in danger from nuclear attack by someone that did not have nuclear weapons. There is NO question, the intent of Bush and Cheney was to make it appear that Saddam would most likely attack us with nuclear weapons unless we invaded Iraq and removed him from power. Saddam was incapable of any such thing and since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have such weapons they LIED pure and simple. Without the nuclear issue there would not have been a vote by Congress to allow Bush to invade Iraq. Also that resolution said Bush could invade Iraq AS A LAST RESORT. We were not even close to a LAST RESORT when Bush invaded. He immediately moved into Iraq even though the UN Weapons Inspectors had NOT completed their work! If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons’ inspectorates to finish, we would all have known that Saddam DID NOT have WMD and there would not have been an Iraq WAR!
Reply #27 Top
It's so funny how col keeps claiming something he has been proved wrong about.

If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons’ inspectorates to finish, we would all have known that Saddam DID NOT have WMD and there would not have been an Iraq WAR!


Weapons inspectors failed for 12 years straight.  Saddam was actively trying to deceive them on a daily basis.
Reply #28 Top
What have I been proven wrong about?

Bush and Cheney claimed that if we did not remove Saddam that we were in danger of Mushroom Clouds over our cities-- Prove that statement wrong!

Prove this was not in the NIE of 2002--

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.

• 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-Qaeda.

Prove that UN Weapons Inspectors were NOT in Iraq looking for WMD in 2002.

Prove that in Four Years we have found nuclear weapons or long range missiles!


You have NOT disproved any of the above that I have sighted in this Blog. You think by saying you have proven me wrong that that makes the facts GO AWAY. Sorry IDIOTS that is not the case!
Reply #29 Top
Here, since you have no urge to address the facts and would prefer to judge offhand statements to the press, etc., here's are the reasons the US Congress decided we should invade Iraq. Notice that many of the claims about WMDs cited are directly referencing Bill Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" and the intelligence he used to push it and his bombing campaign, "Desert Fox".

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


  • Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
  • Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
  • Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
  • Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
  • Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations;
  • Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
  • Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
  • Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
  • Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
  • Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
  • Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
  • Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
  • Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
  • Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
  • Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
  • Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region, and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688;
  • Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
  • Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions, while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable;
  • Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
  • Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
  • Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
  • Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
  • Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Sorry to stink up your blog with the truth, but I think you'll see there that there was a lot more to the invasion than WMDs, and there was no reliance on impending clouds over US cities, mushroom or otherwise. You'll note that the reference to the conclusion about Iraq's intent to produce WMDs is dated 1998, during the Clinton administration.

Again, if you want to be serious about this, address impeachment in the way it would have to be addressed to GET IT DONE; i.e. what is really required for impeachment, and those acts by Bush that would apply. Short of that, you're just blowing smoke.
Reply #30 Top
You have NOT disproved any of the above that I have sighted in this Blog. You think by saying you have proven me wrong that that makes the facts GO AWAY. Sorry IDIOTS that is not the case!


As usual personal attacks don't prove you right either.  If you actually read what was posted to you,  you will see you are incorrect.

Also, take notice how pretty much nobody is reporting this except for lefties over at the dailykos, which I believe is a source of some of your "facts" recently.  This is about as useless as the Bush was AWOL nonsense.
Reply #31 Top
Could you cite the particular speech where Bush said "mushroom clouds over US cities"? In the speech he gave to America about military action, Bush said:

"There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."


Not exactly what you are describing. Even then, I'm not sure there's any legal standard for something spoken in a speech, even if found to be in error, being just cause for impeachment. What is your case, a REAL CASE, for impeachment, Col?
Reply #32 Top
This explains why the liberals keep harping on nuclear weapons. The resolution does not mention nuclear weapons. But in adding nuclear weapons that were not there it makes it sound like they were lied to by the President. It alos allows the liberals to say that if they knew that WMD were not there they would not have voted to authorize the President. Very cute misdirection on their part because the average liberal does not read anything not posted on hate sites.
Reply #33 Top
Paladin77

The resolution did not mention nuclear weapons but Bush and Cheney used the threat of Saddam using them to scare Congress and the American people to allow him to invade Iraq.

Bakerstreet

"What is your case, a REAL CASE, for impeachment, Col?"-- We have a president and VP that took this country to war, that resulted in over 3000 dead and 22,000 injured that was NOT Justified because the United States was not is any danger from Saddam and Iraq. They had no capability to endanger our country and they were not responsible for 9/11. There were other CONTRIES IN 2002-2003 THAT WERE FAR MORE DANGERS THEN Iraq. The President Disregarded KEY Intelligence in making the argument to attack Saddam and did not provide the troop levels that the Generals said were required and which the results have PROVEN were needed. I believe the unjustified Killing and Injuring of American troops is a reason to impeach the Commander-in-Chief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is why I want Bush and Cheney Impeached! They both are great at sending other sons and daughters into danger but when it was their turn they BOTH kept their asses safe. I do not see either Bush or Cheney with their children getting shot at in this war that Bush and Cheney insist was essential and the right thing to do. Finally Bush did not invade Iraq as a LAST RESORT as the Congressional Resolution said. He went to war just as soon as he had the resolution in hand.
Reply #34 Top

Again, slowly... no matter how many exclamation points you put behind it, there are criteria for impeachment. There is due process. Either explain in real world terms what your case is, or admit that you don't have one.

The fact is the war resolution above defies your point, and the Congress had all the available information necessary to make the same determination as you. They decided, as Bush did, that it was better to move forward without 100% assurance. That's the truth, but you don't care about the truth.
Reply #35 Top
u are the one full of Bull Shit. I have posted the sections of the 2002 NIE


NO YOU HAVEN'T!

If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons’ inspectorates to finish, we would all have known that Saddam DID NOT have WMD and there would not have been an Iraq WAR!


HE DID! SADDAM DIDN'T
Reply #36 Top
Paladin77

The resolution did not mention nuclear weapons but Bush and Cheney used the threat of Saddam using them to scare Congress and the American people to allow him to invade Iraq.


Yes it does! Are you that blind? Baker did NOT make this up:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;


IDIOT!
Reply #37 Top
"What is your case, a REAL CASE, for impeachment, Col?"-- We have a president and VP that took this country to war, that resulted in over 3000 dead and 22,000 injured that was NOT Justified because the United States was not is any danger from Saddam and Iraq.


Obviously the congress thought different! And do NOT try to say this is a lie. It can be pulled "entirely" from the congressional pages on the web.

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region, and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions, while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



No where in "any" of your ignorant ramblings have you "ever" been able to refute this!

Thank you VERY MUCH bakerstreet!
Reply #38 Top
"Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677; "

Problem is that ONLY the UN Security Council can authorize force to make a country comply with its resolutions. THERE WAS NO SUCH U N resolution to use force! CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO ACT FOR THE UN. The Secretary General of the UN has stated that the US did not have the permission of the UN to invade Iraq under UN Resolutions.

"President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.


"Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:"


The Iraq war 'according to our Intelligence agencies' has made America LESS Safe the exact opposite of what this resolution authorizes. In addition the Iraq war has NOT Restored International Peace but has destabilized Iraq and threatens to destabilize the entire region.

Finally, the only reason this resolution passed is because those that voted for it believed we were in danger from Saddam, especially due to nuclear attack. Bush and Cheney had the NIT that disputed any nuclear weapons in Iraq. In addition, the Pentagon had provided the White House with their assessment of the MILITARY capability of Saddam in 2002. The Pentagon concluded that Saddam was ONLY capable of military operations within the central section of Iraq. HOW was Saddam who had no nuclear weapons, long range missiles, Navy, Air Force and a very limited Army to endanger the United States? Bush and Cheney LIED about the danger posed to this country by Saddam in 2002 and the majority in Congress believed Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #39 Top
It's difficult to talk to you about it if you refuse to read it accurately and skip most of it that addresses other concerns. You're cutting out posts that reference ones before and after, like the 9/11 one. Hussein WAS supporting terrorism, at the bare minimum of paying bounties for bombings in Israel. The part about the UN resolutions was a citation of Hussein's history, not a claim that we were working at the behest of the UN.

Again, you ignore the real intent behind both the Congressional act and the military action as a whole. If it wasn't Iraq you'd be here demanding impeachment over something else. I have to assume at this point that you are just deranged. 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.

Make your point. Show how Bush's behavior meets reasonable criteria for impeachment. Not you opinion, not broad claims based upon public statements and speeches. Simply line out the case you'd make if you were in charge of the proceedings in Congress. It's not so easy when exclamation points don't count.


Reply #40 Top
The resolution did not mention nuclear weapons but Bush and Cheney used the threat of Saddam using them to scare Congress and the American people to allow him to invade Iraq.


You show me a majority of Congresspeople that make that claim. You lied when you said the Congress did not see the NIE, You lied when you said Mr. Libby testified in court admittng his guilt, you lie a lot. Show me.

Problem is that ONLY the UN Security Council can authorize force to make a country comply with its resolutions. THERE WAS NO SUCH U N resolution to use force!


once again you distort the facts or you are lying. The war was never over. The cease fire was contingent on Iraq doing what they agreed to, once they faild to comply the war begins anew. What that means is that no further authorization is required. You would know this if you bothered to do some research.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.


Please explain what you call it when wounded people in afghanistan show up in Iraqi hospitals? is that not giving aid to our enemies? Is that not harboring our enemies? Research col Gene, try it it might keep you from looking like the political hack you are.

The Iraq war 'according to our Intelligence agencies' has made America LESS Safe the exact opposite of what this resolution authorizes. In addition the Iraq war has NOT Restored International Peace but has destabilized Iraq and threatens to destabilize the entire region.


political hack. Please tell me when was the last AQ terrorist attack on US soil?

The Pentagon concluded that Saddam was ONLY capable of military operations within the central section of Iraq. HOW was Saddam who had no nuclear weapons, long range missiles, Navy, Air Force and a very limited Army to endanger the United States? Bush and Cheney LIED about the danger posed to this country by Saddam in 2002 and the majority in Congress believed Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ok, so Senator Clinton lied because she said she read the NIE and she never brought up nuclear weapons. She did say that Saddam harbored AQ terrorist. You lied again.
Reply #41 Top
Since I have posted pieces of this for you to answer and you have ignored it all five tiems you can see she was not worried about nukes as you have lied saying that Congress was afraid of a nuclear attack. Don't you hate it when your beloved Senator disagrees with you?

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Reply #42 Top
Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677; "

Problem is that ONLY the UN Security Council can authorize force to make a country comply with its resolutions. THERE WAS NO SUCH U N resolution to use force! CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO ACT FOR THE UN. The Secretary General of the UN has stated that the US did not have the permission of the UN to invade Iraq under UN Resolutions.

"President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.


"Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:"


The Iraq war 'according to our Intelligence agencies' has made America LESS Safe the exact opposite of what this resolution authorizes. In addition the Iraq war has NOT Restored International Peace but has destabilized Iraq and threatens to destabilize the entire region.

Finally, the only reason this resolution passed is because those that voted for it believed we were in danger from Saddam, especially due to nuclear attack. Bush and Cheney had the NIT that disputed any nuclear weapons in Iraq. In addition, the Pentagon had provided the White House with their assessment of the MILITARY capability of Saddam in 2002. The Pentagon concluded that Saddam was ONLY capable of military operations within the central section of Iraq. HOW was Saddam who had no nuclear weapons, long range missiles, Navy, Air Force and a very limited Army to endanger the United States? Bush and Cheney LIED about the danger posed to this country by Saddam in 2002 and the majority in Congress believed Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are a BULLSH*T artist of the first degree.
Reply #43 Top
You are a BULLSH*T artist of the first degree.


I disagree, to be of the first degree would mean he was able to make us believe his crap at leaset for a little while. He could not pull it off for more than a moment if that long. Usually he fails within a paragraph. More like the 12th degree.
Reply #44 Top
I see Col has learned a new trick. He now figured out how to combine CAPS with bold letter to try to get people to understand his confused mentality that even those who, on this site, hate or dislike Bush won't even grace him with a glance to his articles.

WE HAD NO reason to attack Iraq unless they were a real danger to the U.S. That was NOT the case in 2002-2003.


Yea, we should always wait to have a nuke dropped on us first before we can decide to stop someone from using a nuke against us. That way no one can say we invaded first and found nothing. This is a great idea Col gene, you are a genius (just in case, I am being sarcastic here since you tend to misunderstand people who sound like they are agreeing with you but are really pointing out your stupidity). You deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Godzilla should be the one to hand it to you.

I have to hand it to you Col. I never thought it was possible that a person as idiotic as you could get so many points on this site. With my low score I must be a genius.
Reply #45 Top
You are a BULLSH*T artist of the first degree.


I disagree, to be of the first degree would mean he was able to make us believe his crap at least for a little while. He could not pull it off for more than a moment if that long. Usually he fails within a paragraph. More like the 16th degree.


How about we just drop the degree part altogether and just agree to the bs artist bit?
Reply #46 Top
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.
Reply #47 Top

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!
Reply #48 Top
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!
Reply #49 Top
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!
Reply #50 Top
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!