^Setting the standards a bit high aren't we? Honesty on all fronts, or whatever passes for it that day, is the best policy. Sooner or later it will come out and why have it turning against you? Do you really think the American public would back a power grab? This is a public that still votes based on faith in majority numbers.
Your basic premise for the side of the argument you advocate is absent any consideration of viable alternates. On that basis it is an essentially invalid proposal.
I noted earlier there are many other potential, and more practical solutions. The one George W. Bush selected without disclosure and debate is particularly insidious in that it lacked openness needed to consider other options, and the one selected is proving to be far from the solution he and his team dreamed up when they made the decisions they made.
My position on this subject comes down to prove to me there ever was a problem maintaining access to sufficient oil supplies. You have never established that as real issue with real data. And then, if you do make that case, what other solutions should be considered? What cost is acceptable to maintain our energy supply?
If, again, you presume you can make the case that military action necessary, please explain the rest of your premise - the practical burdens of maintaining a supply line as long as the one from the ME to the US in times of hostility over oil. I think without these issues on the table, you, like Bush, are prepared to act without considering the consequences. I do not believe that supply line, in times of hostilities over access to oil, can be defended against a determined China or India, or even Europe or Australia. We have a less than 300 ship Navy. Most ships and all our planes run on oil. The more we have to defend the less "net" oil is delivered. Every sunk oil tanker is threat to our food supplies from the seas, and can ruin the lifestyle of those living near the sea shore.
Your premise, that Bush was correct, is not established by any data you or he have provided, so there is no way you have made the case for identifying the PRIMARY reason Bush was correct. But keep lowering the bar Shane, it seems to be something you are comfortable doing. I am not. I am convinced the trillion dollar bill for this "plan" of Bush's could have made this country independent of ME oil all together. Which is even better than having access to buy it from the ME under any circumstances. Jim