I mean, I figured that his entire stance was him being really and truly against the war from the start – you know, principled. Dangerously wrong and hideously naive, but principled.

Turns out he just wants his cut:

Apparently, the junior Senator from Illinois doesn’t like it when we dare to rebuild a country that had been systematically wrecked over the course of more than fifty years{}; he doesn’t *like it when the inhabitants of that country look to actually make some badly-needed money off of immensely-stupid and Democratic-derived domestic energy policy; and he doesn’t like it that this country isn’t treating $4/gallon gas as a reason to lower their expectations and accept malaise. Hence the harping on the funds. Which leads to the question: should we be taking that cash away from the Iraqis, then? There’d still be a 40 billion dollar or so shortfall, but hey, I’m sure that he could find some way to make up the difference. Or are just you holding out for looting, say, 10% off the top, Senator Obama?

Because if that last is so, it’s a real shame for Saddam that you weren’t really around in 2002. He would have taken that deal in a second.

Moe Lane

PS: And I’m also guessing that Obama doesn’t like most of the people reading this blog entry right now. I say “guess” because I don’t formally know that he really does think that you’re stupid enough to actually buy this line.

{}Oh, yes, we so totally broke Iraq. That’s a major reason why we’re rebuilding the blipping place. And, yet again, I must apologize to Democrats everywhere for us *daring to put this project in motion when there was no way for a member of your party to take sole credit for it.