Forum Home | Login

WHY Bush and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED!

COL Gene

Join Date 09/2004

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.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

We expended huge amounts of resources fighting Hitler in Europe. With those resources intact, and Hitler expended trying to hold Europe and bouncing off Russia every time it snowed... there would have been no way, no way possible that he would have been a problem here.

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bakerstreet

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

Every warning that Bush was given about invading Iraq has been proven accurate. Bush is a failure and a person that has admitted he does not read books, had no foreign policy or military experience and ignored those with that experience. He like anyone that defends him is an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The Manhattan project disproves the idea that "Super Weapons" were a as you put it a Hazy Possibility. "

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Every warning that Bush was given about invading Iraq has been proven accurate.

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Drmiler

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

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

[From October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

From October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

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

Why did you have to print this? Now col Gene will have to post a new article ignoring it again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Paladin77

Hey Idiot. This is part of what I posted:

• 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.

If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to complete their job we would have learned what we learned after we invaded Iraq-- Saddam did not have WMD! If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to uncover this he would not have been able to get Congress to allow the Invasion. We were NOT IN DANGER from Saddam in 2002. There was NO DANGER that justified sending our military to their death or to have spent 3/4 of a Trillion Dollars. What we accomplished is created many new enemies in the Moslem world and now al Qaeda is operating in Iraq which was NOT the case in 2002.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"We were NOT IN DANGER from Saddam in 2002."

And we weren't in danger from Hitler in 1941. Yet, you admit that addressing potential dangers in the future are worthy acts of war. Except, of course, when Bush does it. The same way you only fault Bush for things other presidents have done in reference to the economy, etc.

After a while, it should become apparent what this is really about.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to complete their job we would have learned what we learned after we invaded Iraq-- Saddam did not have WMD! If Bush had allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to uncover this he would not have been able to get Congress to allow the Invasion. We were NOT IN DANGER from Saddam in 2002. There was NO DANGER that justified sending our military to their death or to have spent 3/4 of a Trillion Dollars. What we accomplished is created many new enemies in the Moslem world and now al Qaeda is operating in Iraq which was NOT the case in 2002.

As stated many times to you the threat was not that he would hit us with a nuke. The threat was that he would give his current stockpiles of WMD to terrorist he was harboring in his country at the time we went to war. You have yet to answer this minor point. Saddam may not have had the ability to reach the US but AQ had already demonstrated the ability to reach the US. With the two together it made a serious threat. It was explained by the President many times prior to the invasion, and admitted by Saddam publicly. You have failed to answer that as well. What you just admitted is that you knew they were a threat but you wish to contort any intelligence to meet your silly theory that we have to be attacked before we can fight back. The President changed that policy in 2001. If a nation state makes a threat they make themselves a target.
You LIED, You caught yourself in that LIE, you are done.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bakerstreet

First, we were attacked in 1941 and that is why we went to war. Germany and Japan were allied and Hitler was a thousand times more dangerous in 1941 then Saddam was in 2002. Hitler had millions of men under arms and had invaded much of Europe. Saddam in 2002 had the military capability to only conduct operations in the central section of Iraq. He could not have threatened his neighbors in 2002 much less the United States. If you equate the danger of Hitler in 1941 with Saddam in 2002 you are simply demented.

Paladin77

You are full of BS. The danger that MOST people in this country was afraid of was the nuclear threat. That is WHY Bush and Cheney used the specter of the Mushroom Clouds if we did not invade Iraq in 2002. Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons the Mushroom Clouds was a BIG LIE to scare Congress and the American people to allow him to invade Iraq. Why Bush really wanted to invade Iraq is not known. However, people a lot smarter and better informed then Bush WARNED him of what were the likely dangers of INVADING Iraq. Bush IGNORED their advice which has been proven CORRECT and his JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG!
Now we are in a NO WIN situation and have created millions of NEW radicals that would try another 9/11. NOTHING about Iraq has made us safer and NOTHING has gone the way Bush and Cheney told us it would go. They were 100% WRONG! These are the people that we should support? WHY!

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are full of BS. The danger that MOST people in this country was afraid of was the nuclear threat. That is WHY Bush and Cheney used the specter of the Mushroom Clouds if we did not invade Iraq in 2002. Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons the Mushroom Clouds was a BIG LIE to scare Congress and the American people to allow him to invade Iraq. Why Bush really wanted to invade Iraq is not known. However, people a lot smarter and better informed then Bush WARNED him of what were the likely dangers of INVADING Iraq. Bush IGNORED their advice which has been proven CORRECT and his JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG!
Now we are in a NO WIN situation and have created millions of NEW radicals that would try another 9/11. NOTHING about Iraq has made us safer and NOTHING has gone the way Bush and Cheney told us it would go. They were 100% WRONG! These are the people that we should support? WHY!

This is a repeat of the lies you have been telling with nothing new.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Paladin77

You are just as much of an Idiot as Bush. Everything I have said is TRUE.

You best READ the following:

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 Posted: 10:47 AM EDT (1447 GMT)
Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year

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.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

Published on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 by the Boston Globe

Questions for Condoleezza
by Derrick Z. Jackson

THE COLD WAR QUEEN remained frozen in facts that melted into fiction as she talked. Speaking last week before the National Association of Black Journalists, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "Let us be very clear about why we went to war against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. This was a regime that had pursued, had used, and possessed weapons of mass destruction." Rice did not dare tread upon the issues that were not clear. Her cocksure posture could not hide the fact that she made no other mention of weapons of mass destruction in her prepared remarks. The United States has yet to find any after nearly five months of war and occupation. This was after a war buildup where Bush officials boasted they were certain where the weapons were.
Just as significant is that there was not a single reference in her set speech about Saddam trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Before the war, Rice said, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The scary vision of mushroom clouds was repeated by Bush and General Tommy Franks, head of Central Command. Vice President Dick Cheney declared Saddam to be a "mortal threat" on his way to "nuclear blackmail."

Successfully updated karma reason!

You best READ the following:

Not only have I read this I watched some of it live. Are you saying that it was untrue? If so then you lie.

You sir are a political hack. You distort statements to make your points. No where have you shown these statemetns infulenced Congress to go to war. The public record does not include these statements as justification to go to war in Iraq.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Paladin77

I am the one that said Bush and Cheney hyped the nuclear threat and you respond that I was lying. I post the actual stories and now you say you saw them. As to what members of Congress thought about the Bush/Cheney claim of the nuclear threat-- All but the direst Bush Supporters have said that was the MOST significant danger so far as they were concerned. I BET that if you asked the average American what scared then the most they would all say the Nuclear Threat-- the one that was made up by Bush and Cheney. Your statements present the picture of a TOTALLY ignorant individual that refuses to accept the facts and will reject anything that shows just how lame a President and Vice President we have in office. Just look at Iraq. Six helicopters shot down in 4 weeks. Thousands of Iraqi’s dead and another month of the killing of our troops in a Civil War we can not win!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am the one that said Bush and Cheney hyped the nuclear threat and you respond that I was lying.

THis is because the press hyped the nuclear threat even when the administration said the press was making too much of it. What you are saying is that the President hyped the nuclear angle in order to go to war. What the President said was we could no longer wait until we are attacked to find out just how dangerous someone was. If a leader makes a threat then we take them at their word and defend ourselves. AQ threatened us for years and we did little because we are the big bad U. S. of A and beating up on some little terrorist group did not look good. Then they killed 2900 people on our own soil and we said that is enough. We will no longer care what it looks like if they declare war on us we will fight back no matter what the size. For defending America you want to impeach the man. His oath of office demands that he defend America with everything he has at his disposal.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Clinton also hyped that threat, and used it as an excuse for Operation Desert Fox. They even said that Hussein's abilities in 1998 were so widespread that there was no hope of destroying it all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Paladin77

The Press did not HYPE the Nuclear Threat. It was the President and Vice President that HYPED the danger when they told Congress and the American people that Saddam was such a danger that to fail to remove him from power would risk Mushroom Clouds over American Cities. They told those LIES since they had Intelligence that said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear program in 2002. You can not produce Mushroom Clouds without nuclear weapons!!!!!

Bakerstreet

When did Clinton start a War that after FOUR Years it gets worse EVERY DAY? When did Clinton start a war that cost 3,100 dead American Military, 23,000 injured and when did a war Clinton Started cost the American taxpayers 3/4 of a Trillion Dollars? When did Clinton start a war that made our country LESS save because of the WAR? ANSWER TO ALL THESE IS NEVER!!!!!!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tell me again where Saddam was not a threat according to the NIE

Successfully updated karma reason!

"ANSWER TO ALL THESE IS NEVER!!!!!!!!"

So when you are shown that Bush's excuse for the war was shared by people you refuse to condemn, you shift. If I address, again, what you shift to, you'll shift to the economy and oil revenues. Then it will be his military service. Then it will be back to the reasons for the war.

Te Nosce, Col. This isn't about what Bush does, this is about Bush.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

It was the President and Vice President that HYPED the danger when they told Congress and the American people that Saddam was such a danger that to fail to remove him from power would risk Mushroom Clouds over American Cities.

A vague reference to mushroom clouds does not constitute "hype". No matter what you do or say, Bush will not be impeached. Realize that and move on with your own life.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Realize that and move on with your own life.

Bush bashing seems to be the only life he has. Pathetic, isn't it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

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!

MasonM

I have a lot of interests, chaired the local church school board and was president of a non-profit corporation that helped low income people repair their homes and provided low income housing to seniors. Caring for my wife who has cancer. Finding things about Bush is easy. Every day brings a wealth of information as to just how poor a president we have in our country.

IslandDog

Mushroom Clouds over American cities is anything but vague! It was a scare tactic that Bush and Cheney knew was a lie when the statements were made. It was designed to frighten the American people and create support in Congress to invade Iraq. IT WAS A LIE pure and simple!

Today we see Cheney and Libby choose not to testify. That says volumes given what the other people said under oath at this trial. They were afraid to be put into a position of either telling the truth or lying and risking jail time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"They were afraid to be put into a position of either telling the truth or lying and risking jail time."

With pissy, vindictive people who take advantage of any slip of the tongue to charge you with perjury? Who wouldn't take a pass on that. This "investigate a crime, prosecute misstatements during the investigation" garbage was boring with Clinton, and every time it gets more boring. Now I think they just fish hoping someone will forget some detail on the stand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: