This war partly falls under the personal motives category. While the major goal of the war was clearly (to me, anyway) to establish a forward base for post 9/11 operations ("protecting" Iraq's oilfields being a "coincidental" perk), scoring on S. Hussein after dad's disappointment was surely a minor but important goal for George Jr.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EhpKmQCCwB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Haha Pspr . . . seems like FC has struck a nerve. On this very same page you post a thread by a 95 yr old vet retired titled '' War Vet Pens Letter Chastising Obamas'' about the First Couple not acting like Americans.
How about: Every politician who votes for war as an unavoidable imperative must be required to send his/her son/daughter/brother/closest eligible relative to the front line. I don't see too much problem with garnering public support for a cause that engenders that much conviction.
he also said that budget deficits were immoral or that he would balance the budget in his 2008 debates he believed in transparency he would get the fat from the budget he said ben ghazi was a terror attack from the start he would stop wall street corruption he stop the tides from rising he would get us out of the wars fast hillary was a great secretary of state the debt is not a problem taxes would not go up on the non 2% he was an oil drilling president
You mean the guy who promised us an "open and honest presidency"? ****************************************** "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." - President Barack Obama, January 2008 ---------------------------- Two years later⦠March 2010. "The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/21/nation/la-na-ticket21-2010mar21 ****************************************** Obama's secrets One of the most disappointing attributes of the Obama administration has been its proclivity for secrecy. The president who committed himself to "an unprecedented level of openness in government" has followed the example of his predecessor by invoking the "state secrets" privilege to derail litigation about government misdeeds in the war on terror. He has refused to release the administration's secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which two senators have described as alarming. He has blocked the dissemination of photographs documenting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. service members. And now his Justice Department has proposed to allow government agencies to lie about the existence of documents being sought under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. At present, if the government doesn't want to admit the existence of a document it believes to be exempt from FOIA, it may advise the person making the request that it can neither confirm nor deny the document's existence. Under the proposed regulation, an agency that withholds a document "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist." This policy is outrageous. It provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA. It also would mislead citizens who might file an appeal if they knew there was a possibility that the document they sought was in the possession of a government agency. Such an appeal would allow a court to determine whether the requested document was covered by an exemption in FOIA. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/opinion/la-ed-secrets-20111031
Interesting that PolitiFact refuses to do a similar analysis for Bush. They claim they don't have the staff. (If you believe that there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.) Bush probably kept as a large a percentage of his promises as Obama did, but politifact doesn't want us to know about it so instead they give us excuses. (Note: I'm no fan of George Bush, but the point here is that Politifact has obviously set this up to make Obama look good at everybody's else expense. The fix is in on this one, but since there's a sucker born every minute they have a huge audience.)
Sadly, that is true. How about a requirement that every reporter who interviews a politician that votes to go to war must ask for the public record: "Is this a cause you would send your own son/daughter/etc... to fight?" Then when election time comes, voters can refer back to the answer to that question during their campaign. Of course, at that point, the voters can ask the follow-up question: "Then - why don't you?"