Please someone rip this to shreads...
Ps. if you go to the url below, you will find links strewn throughout this article.

from (13,093 visitors)
This page is dedicated to all who believe they will be safer if they vote for Bush on November 2nd.

Before I start my rant: Don't believe everything you hear or read. Think about it, examine it, check it out for yourself. This goes for this site as well. Be an informed American.

Now, on to the rant.....

Bush has caused more damage and human suffering than 9-11 did. This will continue until he leaves office.

Iraq Deaths 9/11 Deaths Iraq Wounded
1,169 3,047 8,150

As of October 29th, 1,111 dedicated Americans in uniform have died in Iraq. 58 civilian contractors have died and 8,150 have been wounded in action. This destruction has brought pain and tragedy to more lives than 9/11.

These men and women volunteered to protect America with their lives. Bush took advantage of these brave souls and sent them to their deaths over lies. There is no higher crime.

Many Bush supporters continue to believe Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda or had WMD programs. Both of these assertions have proven to be false by both the Duelfer Report and the 9/11 Commission findings.

The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in September 11th, and they also concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Bush is on record saying "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th".

In an audio tape, Osama Bin Laden calls Saddam Hussein a socialist "infidel". It is clear that Bin Laden had great contempt for Hussein.

The CIA's Duelfer Report tells us that Iraq had No WMD and No WMD programs. The report tells us that all WMD programs were destroyed during and shortly after the 1991 gulf war.

In September 2002, Bush addressed the UN General Assembly and stated "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

However, well before that speech, Bush was aware that senior scientists at the Department of Energy believed these tubes were not suitable for use in a nuclear weapons program but rather were identical to the tubes that Iraq used in the past for "small artillery rockets". David Albright, an Iraq WMD inspector after the first gulf war, agreed with the DoE scientists.

In David Albright's report "Iraq's Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction", he states, "After ISIS revealed significant opposition from highly qualified analysts, the administration had to admit that was true, but tried to discredit analysis by the US Department of Energy (DOE), the IAEA, and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). In addition, several analysts inside the government said they were under pressure not to say anything publicly."

In January 2003, Bush gave his State of the Union address and stated "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He also repeats the aluminum tube theory.

The IAEA proved the uranium claim to be false before we started the war in Iraq. IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei addressed the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003. He said, "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic."

IAEA officials are on record as saying “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.” One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, who had been out of office since 1989. An IAEA official said "they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) stated in an October 2002 national intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction" that "..the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious. "

This was no surprise to Bush. He sent Joseph Wilson to Niger in February 2002 to check on these claims. He reported back that the claims were false.

Wilson wrote an Op-Ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", that appeared in the New York Times on July 6th, 2003.

Robert Novak published a column on July 13th, "Mission to Niger",that outed Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. Novak cited senior administration officials for the leak. Wilson contends this is retribution from the Bush Administration for his Op-Ed piece. Outing a CIA officer not only endangers our country, it endangers the life of that officer and the lives of every other officer that has worked with that officer. It is a serious crime and is now the focus of a grand jury.

UN weapons inspectors scoured Iraq for signs of WMD before the war. None were ever found. The inspectors were given GPS coordinates and other hints from the US Intelligence agencies as to where they could find WMD's. On February 20th, an inspector is quoted as saying the intelligence was "garbage" and accused the US of sending them on wild-goose chases. Another inspector said "None of their hot tips were ever confirmed." [ I seem to remember the lead weapons inspector, Hans Blix, telling a live camera that the intelligence from the US was "****". But I can't find any links.] This was the time Bush could have made his case for war, but failed to do so.
Even after overwhelming evidence against Iraqi WMD before the war the administration keeps pushing the WMD's. On March 20, 2003, after the war started, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled says on national TV, "We know where they are." in reference to Iraq's WMD's. We now know they were completely full of it.

On May 1st, 2003, a group of former CIA analysts, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, sent an open letter to Bush that stated, "While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."
Another way to look at it: The only organization that was pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's was the Bush administration and parts of the CIA. There was massive dissent from other government agencies. Massive dissent from other governments. And massive dissent from every scientific body that looked at the evidence. Bush chose not to listen to the thousands of dissenting voices and instead focus on the words of a few people surrounding him.

If you have read this far, and read a few of the links, you should have no doubt in your mind that Bush knew all the reasons for war with Iraq were false before the war the started. If you think Bush believed his intelligence was real while disregarding dissent from various government agencies, you must agree that Bush is incompetent and not fit to lead.

Bush has killed and maimed thousands of Americans. And for what? Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. If you still believe that, you need to get off the kool-aid. The question everyone needs to ask is "WHY?". What was the real reason.

Iraq having the 2nd largest supply of proven crude oil reserves in the world might be a reason. If you scoff at that, think of how many oil people surround Bush. His VP was the CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries. His National Security Advisor was on the board of Chevron. In fact, Chevron's largest oil tanker was once named the 'Condoleezza Rice'. His Commerce Secretary was CEO of Tom Brown. Tom Brown explores for, acquires, develops, produces and sells crude oil.

Where will the next war be? Will we find out after the war that the justification was false, again? How many more Americans will be killed? Will it have done anything to capture or kill terrorists that actually threaten us? Or just make Bush's friends more money at the cost of inflicting another September 11th on the American public.

But you say, "Saddam was a horrible dictator that raped, killed and gassed his own people. He had to go and the Iraqi people thank us for that.". Saddam's government was not the most oppressive in the world. That is propaganda. There are evil leaders and militias in Africa that make living in Iraq look like living in DisneyLand. Check out these news stories: "Congo war's 40,000 rape victims face HIV epidemic", "Darfur crisis: a 'slow-motion genocide'".

There are millions of people who live under brutal conditions through out this world. There is genocide, rape, murder, torture, child soldiers and more. Fact is, the American public would be outraged if we lost 1,000 US soldiers trying to free these people. We would pull out only after a few US deaths. Remember Somalia?

The only way to get the American people behind the Iraq war was to present Iraq as an imminent threat to our safety. If the administration simply told us that they thought Saddam was torturing and killing his own people, most Americans would have said 'Good, let him!'. There would have been no support for the war. You can see the same apathy in the American public today over the genocide and rapes in Sudan.

Sudan has terrorists. In fact, the National Islamic Front hosted Osama Bin Laden and the headquarters of Al Qaeda from 1991-1996. Now if Sudan had as much oil as Iraq...

If you want to voice your opinion on this matter, go to the open web log at