Sullivan smacks Putz around again.

Andrew gives Putz a kick:

Glenn favors indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq to prevent a terror-state emerging in the chaos we helped unleash there. So why is he happy to allow Gaza to become a terror-state without our military intervention? Isn't the threat to the West the same - or maybe worse? Glenn responds by asserting that my point is a "mindless snark." He says

It's not like we invaded Iraq for these reasons, after all.

Well: no shit, Sherlock.

Andrew goes on to list the reasons we invaded Iraq: WMD, nukes, Saddam links to terror, with some freedom-spreaing warm fuzzies thrown in for good measure.

Fine.

But of course, those aren't the reasons why Putz thinks we invaded Iraq. To Putz and the neocons, those are just the details. Putz has made it very clear he thinks Iraq was just supposed to be one phase of the Glorious War Against The Arab.

Remember this?

Sanctions were failing and Saddam was a threat, making any other action in the region impossible.

"Any other action" = more wars.

And this?

I supported the invasion of Iraq because I saw it as a move toward shaking up the entire Middle East. But as I've noted before, we seemed to exhaust our momentum as soon as Baghdad fell.

What do you think "shaking up" means in this sentence, class?

Sullivan must not be paying attention. Putz has for months worried that we've lost our "momentum" in the war (read: we're not killing enough Arabs), wondered casually why we weren't murdering Iranian civilians, and of course, advocated a "more rubble, less trouble" approach to the whole region.

That Sullivan doesn't see just how batshit crazy Putz is, and actually makes good faith efforts to engage him in a rational debate about a war he's been completely wrong about in every way, is very puzzling.