Quote:"There you go again,"

 

You willfully ignore the direct and rather detailed political analysis of Barrack Obama's strategy to use the negotiations as the cover for a pull out, just like he used the authorization for use of force as cover for doing nothing in Syria.  I have noticed a distinct pattern of your just omitting the parts of my posts that you just wish would go away.  

 

The basic premise of your argument is asinine.  "Barrack Obama couldn't do x y or z because he would need the support of a b and c."  The funny thing is that liberal politicians run for office to amass omnipotence and yet when things go sour somehow convince the masses that they are but helpless pawns.  Barrack Obama is the leader of the free world.  In efforts such as war and the defense of this nation it is his RESPONSIBILITY to build consensus and coalitions that serve the interest of the globe, but chiefly that of American citizens.  The idea that he didn't have the ability or that his hands were tied is flatly ridiculous.  

 

When Barrack Obama wants something, he usually finds a way to make it happen.  he brought healthcare back from the political scrap heap when congressional members of his own party were being shouted down in town hall meetings.  He got a republican house to pass an increase to the top marginal rate. Any attempt to curtail or limit his legislative achievements by the current congress are slapped down with a threat of a government shutdown.  Show me one instance where he has talked as passionately about keeping troops in Iraq or outright defeating ISIS as he has about bringing in Refugees?  

 

I think that I and other members of the board have indulged your fantasy about Halliburton Stock and oil enough.  If you want to continue with the misguided notion that the Iraq war was based on a lie shared by every major intelligence community you are going to have to provide us with evidence that Sadaam Hussein's execution was faked and that the bush administration promised him billions of dollars in stock options, oil futures, and a faked execution for him being complicit.  Until such time i would please ask you to leave the "Bush lied" t-shirts at home.

I don't ignore parts of your posts. I just find parts of them to be less worthy of my time than others, particularly when I've already responded to your main point. Did Obama want to stay in Iraq? No, but even if he had, the support for him to do so was not there. All politicians run with the goal of being omnipotent leaders. Most fail.

 

As to proof, you're not going to find a government official going on record saying, "Yup, Iraq was all about revenge, Halliburton stock and oil futures." The closest you'll get might be George H. W. Bush's statement in his autobiography about his son letting Dick Cheney take too much control of the administration, and Cheney's desire to use force to strong-arm the Middle East. As rollerjag has already pointed out, if you connect the dots and follow the money, it's not too hard to see that there were motivations beyond, "Saddam might probably could potentially have or be trying to acquire WMDs."

 

Your insistence that Saddam would have to have been a willing participant is almost as comical as your argument that being transsexual is the same thing as pouring bleach in your eyes. Saddam Hussein had a long history of tension with the US and the west in general, going back before Desert Storm. If you'd told him that the US was going to invade if he didn't allow UN inspectors in, he'd probably have added more concertina wire to the top of the fences around his facilities. He was a natural patsy, and you don't have to know that you're a patsy to be one.

 

Your insistence upon documented evidence in a situation where you'll never find any is cool. That's on you. If you're not willing to connect the dots, follow the money, and think outside the, "Bush said this and no one felt like getting killed enough to dispute it," box, then nothing I say or do will convince you that there was more, much more, to the Iraqi invasion than WMDs and UN inspectors. By the federal government's own admission, the insistence that there were WMDs was a lie, a statement presented as fact when all involved knew it was speculative. That alone should be enough to make your Spidey Sense tingle about the whole situation. If it doesn't, hey, enjoy life. I'm done trying to tell a brick wall that it's red.

---