[Thrownatbirth]

Look at a map. A democratic Iraq is a really big deal.

[Just A Nobody]

Congress passed the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the American government.

Can the Smith Act be used to stop a "peaceful" overthrow of the American government?

The Bush administration did not go to war in order to spread democracy. But we saw that the war would create an opportunity to promote democracy in the Middle East. And we understood the U.S. interest in capitalizing on that opportunity, if possible.

Exactly!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I disagree with the timid apologists for democracy.

Because democracy is the *main* goal. Advancing the democratic revolution around the world has been the good goal of America since its own democratic revolution.

And every tyrant in the world is cowed by democracy. They even pretend that they are democratic, calling themselves democratic even when they are tyrannies and dictatorships. This shows their fear of the democratic revolution.

But democracy knows their lies, and continues its advance against those who hate and fear it. Every American president who has advanced democracy around the world has this as his legacy. Most of the rest, who just held the line and protected other democracies from destruction, hold a lesser honor, but still honorable.

And the very few who have abandoned democracies to evil live in shame. Like Jimmy Carter. They failed their office, as they failed America, and they failed the free nations of the world.

George H.W. Bush has earned his seat in the first tier of US presidents in many ways. He has purchased the freedom of more than 30 million lives, and opened the eyes of countless others to the hope for freedom and the need for democracy throughout the Middle East.

[Fee]

Then freepers need to read GWB Foreign Policy Statement when he came to office. It reads like a Wilsonian Policy of using US power (mainly soft, but implication is if target nation resists, then hard power (military) can be used) to spread human rights, democracy, free market and etc, etc, etc. Nothing wrong with its goals, but it will cause nondemocratic nations to see the policy as US interference in their internal affairs. If that happens then the US better have the manpower and treasury to back up the policy assuming the worst scenario happens (dictators support wars of liberation, economic warfare and asymmetric warfare) that will require US forces to deal with terrorism and insurgencies. GWB necons wrote a foreign policy that does not have sufficient military manpower to back up the worst situation that can happen. Personally, I think we should deal with each threat on a case by case basis and use realpolitik factors (war versus cost of war) to make policy decisions. I think one of the good outcomes of the Iraqi war, is it has tempered the overconfidence of the empire building neocons as GWB paid in the public polls over the war.