« RNC opposition research on Hillary | Main | Is Hillary the most polarizing candidate? »

October 19, 2007


OK, I'll bite: why does Bush send troops over to Iraq? It doesn't seem to be for any sensible reason benefiting the United States of America. What's left?

Bush originally sent troops over to Iraq to rid Saddam's Iraq of WMD (a reason which didn't pan out), to create a US-friendly oil rich democracy in a mostly hostile Middle East(a strategic reason), and for humanitarian purposes.

Now, it's likely he's sending them to stabilize Iraq and prevent it from sliding into the hands of Iran or a terrorist friendly regime, any of which could be dangerous to America in the long run. Of course, abandoning Iraq would probably also lead to innocents getting blown up (some, alas, children) and brutalized by whatever regime takes over after US troops depart.

As you can see, there are multiple reasons just cited for why Bush sent troops originally in Iraq and continues to maintain personnel there, none of which includes getting kicks out of seeing American soldiers get dismembered, as Stark so eloquently claimed.

The fact that Atrios called GOP critics of Stark's statements "Whiny Ass Titty Babies"(even though Democrat Nancy Pelosi has condemned Stark's remarks as well---maybe she'll be honored with a "Wanker of the Day") shows that vitriol and blind partisanship are not reserved only for members of the far right.

Yes, I can see that ZacC's answer is good.

I mean, if he'd had a belief in #1, WMD, and then is he'd decided to set up a UC-friendly oil rich nation, #2, then obviously the thrid answer would make sense.

Of course, with over 100,000 Iraqis dead, it's hard to figure. But I'll go with it.

Hoo boy.

"none of which includes getting kicks out of seeing American soldiers get dismembered,"

I'm pretty certain that he has perfect indifference to the the fate of the troops he sends over seas. So I guess you're right!

The comments to this entry are closed.