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.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, November 12, 2007Given 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.

These are the major things I blame Bush for:

The Iraq war and how it was fought
The deficit
The increase in the Trade Deficit
Lack of a solution for Social Security
3 Million Illegal’s that came into our country since 9/11
Increased financial problems of Medicare due to the Drug Plan that was did not funded.
Shift in the wealth from MIDDLE income AMERICANS TO THE WEALTHY
Lack of attention to the infrastructure repairs
Lack of an effective Energy Policy
Increase in the political polarization of our country
Isolation of America from most countries in the world

Bush and his policies are responsible for every one of the above!

Ooh, now he is not the CIC? HE IS whether we like it or not. He put everyone of these morons in the place where they screwed up. He picked a man to look for a VP, and guess what? the man couldnt find anyone among the 300 million Americans but HIMSELF. And the sucker swallowed it. That started the ball rolling downhill. He, the Idiot-in-Chief, ignored every CIA report that was against what he and the other morons with him wanted to do. from day one. Read O'neils' book. They started talking about attacking Iraq in Jan 2001. in his first month in office. The IIC said "the guy (i.e. Saddam) tried to kill my Dad", remember? For God's sake, send a man with a gun to kill him not send the US Armada across the world to do it. How idiotic is that?

And he, and he alone, is not to be blamed?

Well, that is how we got this idiot,twice no less, in the first place.

Good job. Keep it up. There are more foolish adventures to do.

which other idiot would you have preferred. the one that is so disillusioned that he thinks that he invented the INTERNET, or when he breaks the law, he doesn't think he broke the law because he only collected 9 dollars.


or the man who waffles on everything including what tie to wear today.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, November 12, 2007And he, and he alone, is not to be blamed?Well, that is how we got this idiot,twice no less, in the first place.Good job. Keep it up. There are more foolish adventures to do. which other idiot would you have preferred. the one that is so disillusioned that he thinks that he invented the INTERNET, or when he breaks the law, he doesn't think he broke the law because he only collected 9 dollars.or the man who waffles on everything including what tie to wear today.

No one knows how Gore or Kerry would have been as President. What we do know is that Bush has screwed up everything he has touched! I bet we would not be at war in Iraq if Gore had been President as the majority of voters wanted in 2000. That means over 3,800 American military would be alive and we would not have the 28,000 injured nor the $4 trillion dollars of added debt. We may even have done the job in Afghanistan had Gore been President!

Gene went to JoeUser, chasing a Mirage. ;~D