Saddam's ouster will not necessarily lead to the same result, since Iraq lacks democratic traditions. Democracy doesn't just consist of holding elections.
First of all, I think the Saudis are deeply concerned about the collapse of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the resumption of conflict.
You know, different people are going to react different ways. And I don't think we should be intolerable because people do things a little differently.
But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression.
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.
To sum up, the position we took was that since we didn't know the internal situation in Iraq nor Saddam Hussein, that our best bet was to take counsel from the people who did know him and who did deal with him.
But figuring out Saddam Hussein was one our greatest mysteries. He marched to his own drummer and frequently as this unfolded he made decisions which were sometimes inexplicable to us and sometimes didn't look very smart.
But, if you believe we should go around the world overturning regimes to make little United States, I don't agree with that, because I don't think we're capable of doing that.
America has never seen itself as a national state like all others, but rather as an experiment in human freedom and democracy.
After all, we didn't bring democracy to Germany in 1945; Hitler destroyed democracy there first.
My point was that removing Saddam should not have been our highest priority. Fighting terrorism should have been our number one concern, followed by the Palestinian peace process.