Sorry for being a curmudgeon . . .

And I've given away that I'm old enough to qualify for that title, but I just don't get it. The major theme in the liberal blogosphere today is "Gee, why the heck did they invade Iraq? We just can't figure out their motivations, it's all very mysterious."

I'm talking Atrios, Digby, the whole crowd. They're all mystified. I probably shouldn't have singled out Yglesias except that they all used his weird musings as the hook.

I believe the explanation to which I referred in my previous post is one of which we have all been aware since well before they actually cakewalked to Baghdad. (Too bad that "RPG" turned out not to stand for Rose Petals and Garlands after all.)

They are imperialists. They are bent on world domination. Their motive is power and greed. The oil fields of the Middle East are the Greatest Material Prize in World History and they wish to secure them for their employers, specifically Exxon and Halliburton. They said so. Prior to the 2000 election, although they may have confused some people a bit by labelling the client regimes they intended to install "democracy," which obviously is the precise opposite of anything they would ever tolerate. Now, George W. Bush himself may have had some Freudian hangups about his father and may have had a theory that he had to be a wartime president in order to get his chimpish visage on Mount Rushmore but does anybody actually believe that this was his idea? They hired him to run for president and they tell him what to do. His personal psychology is not the hinge of history, okay?

There now, that wasn't so hard, was it? It takes a medical sociologist to explain it to you guys? WTF? I mean, when your friends are sipping at the Kool Aid it just gets frustrating, you know? Sheesh.

Anyhow, as promised, I'm going to spend the day on the farm tomorrow learning how it's done. Back when I can be. Hopefully I will have calmed down.