<<I do enjoy getting a glimpse into the twisted mind of those who still believe we went into Iraq for the oil, and Bush lied us into it.>>
Naturally, disagreeing with the great political analyst known here as sirs constitutes having a "twisted mind."
<<Here, we have this master evil planner in Bush, able to brilliantly convince nearly every intelligence agency that Saddam really had WMD . . . >>
In the first place, Bush did not convince any intelligence agency of anything, he TOLD them what he wanted to find and then they "found" it. As for example when the CIA analysts were not coming up with the "intelligence" Bush needed to justify an invasion of Iraq, he formed a special intelligence operation in the office of Doug Feith, a Defense Department official, which produced the necessary results.
In the second place, there is absolutely nothing illegal in a sovereign country's acquiring any weapons it chooses to acquire. Even if Saddam DID have WMD, they were no more of a threat to the U.S. than similar weapons which were already in the possession of the U.S. itself and nine or ten other countries, some of which had much greater capacity to threaten the U.S. than did the tiny nation of Iraq.
It was a lie to claim that Saddam had WMD, and another lie to claim that Saddam, with or without WMD, posed any kind of real threat to the U.S.A. The mere concept is ridiculous and absurd.
<< . . . when he alone knew they didn't. >>
What Bush knew or didn't know is unimportant. There was no convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD. There was no evidence that convinced the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Russia, China or most of the rest of the world. Not being a mind-reader, I don't know what Bush knew, and neither do you. However, I would suggest respectfully that if a man claims to believe something for which there is no evidence except what he himself has manufactured, there is a very good chance that he does not really believe it. As for what the rest of the world knew as to whether or not Saddam had WMD, I again suggest that in the absence of any credible evidence, there is no indication that any of them believed in Bush's bullshit either.
<<Brilliantly able to take out Saddam with the greatest of military ease, and with Iraq at this evil man's fingertips, and the mighty murderous military at his command, now be too incompotent to take the oil, that a few Abrams could secure at a moment's notive.>>
That's absurd. What, Bush admit to the entire world that he is a gangster and an outlaw and that the country under his leadership behaves as such? In a word, impossible. He could not send a force to secure the oil wells and pump the stuff out. He has to maintain the fiction that the U.S.A. wants nothing from Iraq and that the Iraqi oil remains in the control of the Iraqi people.
Every national leader has to maintain a veneer or a fiction of legality in his actions otherwise his own people wouldn't follow him. Even Adolf Hitler couldn't simply invade Poland, but had to manufacture the fiction that the Poles had attacked Germany first. If Hitler couldn't act with blatant illegality, even when his party had the power of life and death over his citizens, how could a "free country" like the U.S.A. act without even a shred of legality? Short answer is: they can't. Nobody can.
<<Pardon the oxymoron here, but the lunacy of such, is brilliant. Doesn't require 1 shred of evidence, just the U.S. simply not being in control of Iraq's oil, is analogus to proof positive of the whole theory. BDS in it's most terminal case>>
Sorry sirs, the above three lines are obviously wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the oil and no other reason, and I've repeated that evidence over and over again.