But if you don’t think it was waged on behalf of oil or empire, then one reason for our involvement was an attempt to do some good — rid the world of a really bad guy and make life better for Iraqis and others in the region. This “liberal” intent may have left Dick Cheney cold and found Don Rumsfeld indifferent, but it appealed to Bush and it showed in his rhetoric and body language.

This is too depressing for words. Cohen thinks that Bush sincerely cares about helping “make life better for the Iraqi people.” And how does he know this? Is it from watching Bush’s actions? No! It’s from watching his “rhetoric and body language!” Wow, that’s some hard-hitting skeptical journalism right there!

...

Contrast it to the position of the so-called foreign policy realists, exemplified by the first President Bush and his trusted foreign policy sidekick, Brent Scowcroft. It was their decision — cold realism at its best — to end the Persian Gulf War with Saddam Hussein still in power and not to intervene when Hussein later decimated rebellious Shiites in the south. Realistic? Sure. But also sickening.

Bu-bu-but… th… g… holy crap. Richard. You just told us what a disaster the Iraq war was. And now you find the fact that Bush I and Scowcroft wisely decided against plunging us into this national nightmare to be “sickening?” Oh. My. God. Fly me to another country. Fly me to another planet. I refuse to accept that I’m the same species as the people who write for the Post’s editorial page.