"First off, Obama was handed a disaster." No, he applied to deal with a disaster (I don't deny it). But I am incredulous that you continue to lay all blame (and that is very important to you -- assigning blame) for that disaster on Bush's doorstep. First, Bush could not implement any tax structure without it passing through Congress . . through Democrats and Republicans . . before it reached his desk. If you want to blame all Republicans for that, go right ahead, but this single-minded obsession you have with Bush makes me shake my head (shaking my head here).
As for the wars, those also have to be funded -- voted on -- by Congress. Yes, there was mighty pressure being applied to approve those expeditures, but the fact is the Dems voted for them also. As for the needlessness of the wars (this gets a bit tiring to keeping rehashing, but . . ), remember a few things: 1) Not only American intelligence, but also British intelligence, indicated that Saddam Hussein could well have WMD. We were all told how Hussein's officials guided the so-called inspectors to some areas and not to others . . they didn't have free reign to inspect. We were all told that some WMD were on trucks that allowed them to be moved about and thus likely harder to detect (via camouflage) and take out (due to their mobility). What were we supposed to do . . wait for them to be used? Hussein had already brutalized and killed his own citizens . . what would the lives of Isrealis or Saudis (or anyone) mean to him? Hussein had already invaded (Kuwait) or threatened (Saudia Arabia)) neighboring countries. The guy wasn't someone that one could trust with a bluff. He apparently wanted U.S. to THINK he had WMD . . the threat of force . . which is a dangerous game to play. Someone could take you seriously. Just trying acting as if you have a firearm hidden under your clothes and see how a cop reacts -- you would get blown away, and it wouldn't matter that you just had a block of wood. Everyone would say you had it coming. Why are the threats of destruction by a country to be taken any more lightly? I don't think you can afford to guess wrong about that . . you have to act.
As for "the war being about oil", why is that such a damning revelation? Any threat to the flow of oil would send an already shaky economy (or even a thriving economy) into a tail spin. At a dictator's whim, that could happen, resulting in stock exchanges crashing around the world and real people, average people, having their lives desvastated by that. It is not just protecting the profits of the rich oil companies . . it is protecting the lives of average people around the world whose jobs and the value of their money and their ability to access and purchase staple goods depend upon oil. Is that a trivial concern? I think not! But to hear you and Marseil and some in the media and academia talk about it, it is a sin if we fight a war to preserve the flow of oil and our economies.
As for Romney (I know this is running long . . sorry), I don't hold any more hope at the prospect of his becoming President than I do if Obama is re-elected (which I think he will be . . all this Republican side-show is for naught). The front-runners in both major parties are not talking about really addressing the essential problems facing the U.S. We have discussed what those problems are, so I won't reiterate now. There are just too many special and competing interests for any agreements to get made . . at least none that will have any positive effects. It isn't just the govt that is divided, it is the people of the United states that are divided and warring on each other, seeking to be winners to some others' losers. And nobody wins, except America's enemies and competitors, and the ultra rich who are behind it all.