America Went To War Chasing A Mirage

bush is causing the sun to grow.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 08, 2007bush is causing the sun to grow.

You are sad. Read the book and learn something you IDIOT!

iraq had been attack the united states for ten years.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, November 08, 2007iraq had been attack the united states for ten years. bush is causing the sun to grow.

YOU so full of BS. Saddam was defeated in 1991 and never again was a danger to anyone especially not the U.S. This book shows just how we went to war for no valid reason and you can make all the excuses you want, that is the fact!

i did not say danger, i said attacked. for ten years he tried to shoot down our jets. that is an attack on the USA no matter how you spin it.

Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: danielostPosted: Friday, November 09, 2007Saddam was defeated in 1991 and never again was a danger to anyone especially not the U.S. i did not say danger, i said attacked. for ten years he tried to shoot down our jets. that is an attack on the USA no matter how you spin it.

They shot at our jets as we flew over Iraq. What do you think we would have done if Saddam had flown over the U.S.? That is NOT an attack on our country and they had no military capable of attacking anyone. As David Kay correctly said we went to war chasing a mirage.

they were there per agreement at the end of the other war. when you lose a war the winner tells you what you will agree to. if after the war is over and you still attacking or being attacked then the war isn't over. with the exception of units that don't know the war is over.

Yup, America DID go to war chasing a mirage. Most people were against it, but our leaders did it anyway... it was called The Revolutionary War.

Freedom has never come to any nation without great people making decisions that were protested by small minded people with no vision. Recently, 40,000 Iraqis voted for the hope of the new Iraq, by returning home to help build it. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you spitting in their faces for it.

What I really find interesting about Col is that when ever he finds a book, an article, a story or a show that agrees with his ideal, he never once stops to consider that those individuals who write these books, articles, stories or make these shows, may actually have other intentions as oppose to telling the truth, you know like making money. It's as if these people would never tell a lie, people who are or have been involved in politics for long periods of time and Col believes they speak the truth out of the kindness of their hearts cause they actually care about the American people.

I've learned the hard way time and time again that the average person tends to say what people want to hear just to benefit from the reaction without care for the consequences the reaction might have. Politicians wrote the book on "give them what they want we'll worry about the consequences when we get to that bridge". They make these average persons look like rookies.

Col,

I am no one to tell you, in this great nation that is the United States of America, where one is free to read what one wants, what you should or should not read. I, however, ask, just like you asks people like me to read this book you just read, that you take into consideration many motivations that exist when people write books. Considering you yourself have written a couple of books. Things such as money, envy, anger, politics and vengeance are great motivations for some people to write books and articles which may not necessarily be as truthful as they may make them seen. Giving the people what they want in order to make a buck tends to be the highest priority when it comes to writing something as oppose to giving the honest truth. Let's be realistic here, when was the last time that honesty was the best policy? I am only suggesting you look at any book from many points of view and not from a narrow point of view. Cause like they saying goes, if you look for faults in something, chances are you will find it, in this case you will always find someone has written a book that would suggest what you believe in is correct. What you may have failed to notice is that he got exactly what he wanted, your money or at least someones money that you know if you got it from the library and got someone to buy it so they could read it.

charles your talking to gene like he cares, he doesn't. all he cares about is raising taxes on the rich and bashing bush.

Reply | | DeleteReply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Saturday, November 10, 2007Yup, America DID go to war chasing a mirage. Most people were against it, but our leaders did it anyway... it was called The Revolutionary War.Freedom has never come to any nation without great people making decisions that were protested by small minded people with no vision. Recently, 40,000 Iraqis voted for the hope of the new Iraq, by returning home to help build it. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you spitting in their faces for it.

The war in Iraq was justified by Bush because Saddam was a danger to our country. That was a LIE. The ONLY justifiable reason to send our military to war is to defend this country. We were not in any danger from Saddam and Bush was told that by the Pentagon in 2002. For a nation as powerful to have gone to war on a fairy tale that one man wanted to believe is unacceptable. Most of the world DID not support our actions and they were correct. Bush was wrong and no excuse will ever change the fact.

Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007What I really find interesting about Col is that when ever he finds a book, an article, a story or a show that agrees with his ideal, he never once stops to consider that those individuals who write these books, articles, stories or make these shows, may actually have other intentions as oppose to telling the truth, you know like making money. It's as if these people would never tell a lie, people who are or have been involved in politics for long periods of time and Col believes they speak the truth out of the kindness of their hearts cause they actually care about the American people.I've learned the hard way time and time again that the average person tends to say what people want to hear just to benefit from the reaction without care for the consequences the reaction might have. Politicians wrote the book on "give them what they want we'll worry about the consequences when we get to that bridge". They make these average persons look like rookies.

The problem is that the people in this book ARE those that have the FIRST HAND Knowledge unlike everyone on this Blog Site. It makes no difference to those who are not intersected in Truth and only in defending the lies we were told!

No insult intended danielost, the difference between you and me is that I don't always need to resort to insulting Col to get my point across. I believe to a certain point Col has a brain and as you can see he only replied to part of my post because I'm sure he realizes I was right and chose to ignore the rest of my post because of it.

Hmmm, you are right, but then so did Bush, Cheney, Powell, Congress and the Senate. Are you saying that we, the American people, are so stupid that we put morons in the White House, Congress & the Senate and that the real smart people are in our other Gov't agencies?

BTW, I hope you are including yourself in the group of people from "this Blog site". I find it interesting, as you ignored in my post, that you will swallow anything anyone says so long as it agrees with your ideals. I mean you won't even question their motives for saying what they say. Gov't agencies have been know to lie, change the rules and ignore the American peoples opinions, not to mention you yourself have criticized just about all of them for lying at one point or another. Now you wanna ally yourself with them because they are saying something you wanted to hear? I'm sorry Col, but you are exactly the kind of person the Gov't loves, people who are easily dupted into believe anything they say.

Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Sunday, November 11, 2007The problem is that the people in this book ARE those that have the FIRST HAND Knowledge unlike everyone on this Blog Site. It makes no difference to those who are not intersected in Truth and only in defending the lies we were told!Hmmm, you are right, but then so did Bush, Cheney, Powell, Congress and the Senate. Are you saying that we, the American people, are so stupid that we put morons in the White House, Congress & the Senate and that the real smart people are in our other Gov't agencies?

We were wrong in intrusting people like Bush and Cheney with power because they came to power with a preconceived agenda and facts, experience made no difference. Anything that did not help them move their ideas forward were either IGNORED or kept secret so that people were not able to raise important questions about what they wanted to do with the power that comes from the Presidency. Bush and Cheney had no real experience in any foreign or military policy. Those with the experience and knowledge warned Bush but he did not listen and the results are what we see today! In addition, when the facts prove what we did was a mistake, Bush and Cheney continue to defend their policies as correct when the results prove just the opposite!

BTW, I hope you are including yourself in the group of people from "this Blog site". I find it interesting, as you ignored in my post, that you will swallow anything anyone says so long as it agrees with your ideals. I mean you won't even question their motives for saying what they say. Gov't agencies have been know to lie, change the rules and ignore the American peoples opinions, not to mention you yourself have criticized just about all of them for lying at one point or another. Now you wanna ally yourself with them because they are saying something you wanted to hear? I'm sorry Col, but you are exactly the kind of person the Gov't loves, people who are easily dupted into believe

I will look at what has taken place and will look at what the people with the first hand knowledge have to say before making up my mind. I have limited first had knowledge but do look at what people with that knowledge say. When it come to some of the choices regarding the military, I do have some first had knowledge and was fortunate to have received the very best training and education about what has made our military successful. When I compare that with the choices that Bush made in Iraq, I know he was wrong and my opinion is in agreement with most of the senior military leaders of our country.

In business and finance, I had a successful career managing the fiscal operations of large profit and non profit corporations. Again when I look at how I was able to successfully manage the financial affairs and look at what Bush has done to our countries fiscal affairs I know he has not managed the country well. Most of the senior financial experts in our country agree that the way Bush and the GOP in Congress have operated has placed our country is fiscal jeopardy that will extend into the future so that our children and grandchildren will be forced to fix what we have done!

More comes out about efforts to stop Bush from Invading Iraq:

Will Catholics really oppose the war?
Posted by Raymond A. Schroth August 13, 2007 2:07PM
Categories: religion
On Ash Wednesday, March 5, 2003, Cardinal Pio Laghi, who had been the papal nuncio to the United States in the 1980s and had good relations with both Presidents Reagan and George Herbet Walker Bush, was sent by Pope John Paul II to the White House to stop President George W. Bush from invading Iraq.We know now that Bush didn't listen for a minute. In the presence of Condoleezza Rice and others, he started to filibuster, but the old Vatican diplomat demanded that Bush hear him.

He urged Bush to turn his attention to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and warned him that conflict in Iraq would throw the whole Arab world into turmoil. They ushered the Cardinal out of the White House without letting him speak to the press. Bush had already made up his mind. "Your Eminence," he said, "Don't be afraid. We'll do it quickly and in a good way."

What if the Pope had done it differently and played the prophet rather than the diplomat? What if John Paul II called on his bishops to proclaim in every diocese that a preemptive war is immoral? What if he had moved to Baghdad, a "volunteer hostage," so that if Bush bombed Baghdad he would kill the Pope?

Last month, with Bush's "quick war" in its fifth year, 14 Catholic Democratic Congressmen reminded the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of Cardinal Laghi's rebuff and called on them to raise their collective profile to help end the war in Iraq.

In actuality, the bishops criticized the war through their International Justice and Peace Committee, sending Congress a tough letter condemning all forms of torture, and praised the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

But who knew it? Their anti-war statements have died in the in-boxes of the nation's media, diocesan headquarters, and most Catholic newspapers.

Now the Democrats have asked for a meeting, the bishops have accepted, and, in turn, asked for a meeting with Republicans.

Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando has written to both Rep. Tim Ryan (D/Ohio) and Rep. John Boehner (R/Ohio):

"There is no path ahead that leads to an unambiguously good outcome for iraq, our nation and the world. It was for this very reason that we raised serious moral questions regarding military intervention in Iraq in the first place. Nevertheless our nation must have the moral courage to change course. . ."

Meanwhile three Catholic organizations -- Catholics United for the Common Good; NETWORK, founded by women religious; and Pax Christi, USA -- have formed Catholics for an End to the War in Iraq (www.catholics-united.org) to lobby for responsible withdrawal.

But what will happen when the delegations of bishops and congressmen meet? Suppose the Democrats call for a rapid pull-out and the Republicans push to "stay the course"? Will the bishops serve cold toast or strongly repeat Pio Laghi's message? How high will they raise their voices. Who will listen?

And will Bush repeat, "Don't worry, bishops. We'll do this quickly and in a good way?"

The irony of this sentence is that no one here contradicts this. Many here have agreed that Bush has screwed things up pretty good. The real problem is how you blame no one else but Bush for everything that happens in this country and completely dismiss those who are really at fault or are patially at fault.



When you can show me a president, or any politician for that matter, that has not done this, then we can make a big deal out of this. Otherwise you are simply complaining about tactics used but every person in the White House or as a politician for that matter.



It's interesting how you point at how Bush continues to defend his policies even when proven wrong considering how often you do the same on this site. Time and time again, fact after fact, proof after proof, you have been proved wrong on many of yor arguments here yet you refused, every time, to give up and admit you were wrong. Sounds familiar? Ever heard of the phrase "it takes one to know one"?

We all know Bush screwed up, that has been said time and time again by those who argue against you here. But you take things way too far sometimes and that is why you get so much argument against your articles.

Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007We were wrong in intrusting people like Bush and Cheney with power because they came to power with a preconceived agenda and facts, experience made no difference.The irony of this sentence is that no one here contradicts this. Many here have agreed that Bush has screwed things up pretty good. The real problem is how you blame no one else but Bush for everything that happens in this country and completely dismiss those who are really at fault or are patially at fault.

I do understand that others have a hand in the policy errors made during the past 7 years. However, without Bush pushing them, they would just be BAD ideas. It was Bush that ordered the invasion of Iraq. It was Bush that pushed the tax cuts and the spending increases. It was Bush that wanted to change Social Security in a way that would have made the problem of how to pay the Boomers WORSE. It was Bush that pushed the Prescription Drug Plan with no way to pay for it. Yes Congress went along with most of the BAD ideas Bush pushed but again without Bush they would not have taken place.

I acknowledge that Cheney and Rummy were part of the Iraq war. However, WHO selected these people to be in positions of power. Who appointed the Social Security Commission who rubber stamped the private accounts. Who ordered our intelligence agencies to not obey the law that REQUIRED warrants before phones were tapped. Yes I blame others but Bush was the driver and that is what I have documented.

Anything that did not help them move their ideas forward were either IGNORED or kept secret so that people were not able to raise important questions about what they wanted to do with the power that comes from the Presidency.When you can show me a president, or any politician for that matter, that has not done this, then we can make a big deal out of this. Otherwise you are simply complaining about tactics used but every person in the White House or as a politician for that matter.

The process to choose a course of action is to look at the situation, assemble as much relevant intelligence as possible and seek the advice of people that have the experience before choosing a course of action. In Iraq, Bush came into office wanting to remove Saddam from power. When we were attacked in 9/11 Bush and his most senior people ignored people like Powell, Tenet, Baker, Armitage and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. It did not matter that Saddam had no part in 9/11 or that there was a lot of intelligence that refuted the idea that Saddam was a danger to the U.S. Again policy was not developed predicated on the best available facts and expert opinion but of a preconceived decision made long before we were attacked on 9/11.

Just about everything the Bush and Cheney told us about Iraq has been proved to be 100% WRONG and almost all the warnings have been proved TRUE. Everyone makes mistakes but to get it ALL WRONG takes a real idiot!

Anything that did not help them move their ideas forward were either IGNORED or kept secret so that people were not able to raise important questions about what they wanted to do with the power that comes from the Presidency.When you can show me a president, or any politician for that matter, that has not done this, then we can make a big deal out of this. Otherwise you are simply complaining about tactics used but every person in the White House or as a politician for that matter.

The process to choose a course of action is to look at the situation, assemble as much relevant intelligence as possible and seek the advice of people that have the experience before choosing a course of action. In Iraq, Bush came into office wanting to remove Saddam from power. When we were attacked in 9/11 Bush and his most senior people ignored people like Powell, Tenet, Baker, Armitage and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. It did not matter that Saddam had no part in 9/11 or that there was a lot of intelligence that refuted the idea that Saddam was a danger to the U.S. Again policy was not developed predicated on the best available facts and expert opinion but of a preconceived decision made long before we were attacked on 9/11.

Just about everything the Bush and Cheney told us about Iraq has been proved to be 100% WRONG and almost all the warnings have been proved TRUE. Everyone makes mistakes but to get it ALL WRONG takes a real idiot!

We all know Bush screwed up, that has been said time and time again by those who argue against you here. But you take things way too far sometimes and that is why you get so much argument against your articles.

Given the consequences of the choices made by Bush, I have not taken anything TOO far!

you have taken everything to far.


you blamed bush for a bridge collapsing. bush has nothing to do with infrastructure. congress does. the government knew that this bridge had problems for almost 20 years and you blame bush for it. you blamed bush for the deaths of people in new Orleans because he didn't order them out of the city. but the problem is he did. it was the democrat leaders of the state and the city that didn't get those people out. they had 10,000 buses available. Amtrak afford to pull trains down there to get people out. it was the city major who took his poorest people and stuck them in a football stadium with the city prisoners and no police protection.


yet you follow your democrat rulers and blame bush for the whole thing.

Do you really doubt that? The whole world knew that since 2000. It is so obvious, only self-deceiving people dont recognize it.

i have known it since 1990. but then again i think everyone is some kind of moron anyways including me.