This will no doubt go down as the biggest scandal in my lifetime

Isn't it though? That post has been one of the most revealing I have seen from a Trump supporter.

 

Is that seriously news to you?
Yeah, leaders have a huge capacity to influence. Read some history books.

 

Based on what I believe to be a truthful admission by Georgia Amy, and the rhetoric coming from Trump, "controlling oil flow" is and has been a priority. It was the number one reason we went into Iraq, as evidenced by several fact revealing documentaries.

 

Thanks! It's folks like you with your non-existent counter arguments that always seems to bring a glowing bright spot onto my own research, as you so eloquently bow out of the debate, having said nothing.

 

I've seen those documentaries, but I was also present in those years.

Bush stated that oil was NOT the reason for conquering Iraq. Powell also stated that was not the reason. In fact, the month before the war Powell took out a full page aid in the NYT, stating that if Saddam were to give what we asked for on WMDs, there would be no war.

"Controlling oil flow" has more than one definition, of course. We demand that the Straight of Hormuz remain free and open. Is THAT "controlling oil flow"? It's not being done in order for the US to have control over how much oil flows, to whom it flows, how much it costs, from where it flows, etc.

Also, let's remember that Iraq didn't have anywhere near enough oil to pay for it's own post war reconstruction.

Also, there are other reasons that are worth remembering. For example, the Project for a New America Century, with members throughout the Bush administration (including our VP) was dedicated to finding a way to ensure US dominance in the post war era. Their primary paper stated that we needed Iraq in order to have space for US military bases. The reason was that US bases in Saudi Arabia were not likely to be politically tenable for very long, and in Iraq we could control the state for generations.


Whatever the real reason, Bush never stated - even though the joint congressional authorization required that Bush explain why after any decision by him to conquer Iraq.

 

Yea, there is certainly more than one definition for "oil flow". And I am constantly reminded of the old reasons as well as the new. The newest being Trump saying we should have gone in and gotten all the rest of the oil, and that we still may get another chance, is the latest definition that comes to mind.

I also am reminded by Powell, when he made his infamous speech about going to war that he hated making, because he found out the speech wasn't written by who he thought had been written by; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc

And last, there was the big excuse by Cheney to tie Zarqawi in with Saddam where there were no ties, but he insisted there were,in order to push for an excuse to go to war. Cheney just so happens received a big $14 million dollar bonus from Haliburton after he became vice president; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/ The host of definitions can sprout up in a variety of places, but one thing is for sure, in more ways than one, oil was a big part of what we did back then, and thanks to Trump for reminding us, it still is today.

 

I don't know. Obama loosing spy agencies on political opponents, frankly, is much bigger than Watergate.

Trump Asks If It's Legal For Obama To Wiretap Him... Here's The Answer

“There is provisions stating that a U.S. person cannot be surveilled ‘solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’ Thus, if Trump aides were targeted for political reasons, the surveillance would be unlawful even under the dubious protections of FISA.”

It appears that U.S. intelligence agencies tried and may have succeeded in obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

To obtain a FISA warrant, the government needs to demonstrate probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.” On top of that, the agents must prove that the main purpose of the surveillance is to obtain “foreign intelligence information.”

“It is true that, if the target is a ‘U.S. person’ there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person’s activities may involve espionage or other similar conduct in violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. However, citizens can be collateral to the primary target under FISA,” Turley explained.

If Obama didn't do it, it had to be his AG, Loretta Lynch. In fact, even if Obama requested it, it would still go through Loretta Lynch.

If Trump aides were targeted for political reasons, the surveillance would be unlawful even under the dubious protections of FISA.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/...sing-fisa-to-wiretap-trump-tower/#more-110532

 

You'll have to come up with something better than that bit of double talk to put me off. Actually there was nothing to debate to begin with, no counter argument needed I just wanted to point out how vapid your post was. If you have something real you'd like to talk about I'm here.