This sentence, Pat's premise, is simply wrong.
We are not trying to "rule" other people. In fact, we're not all that concerned with what form of government they have, barring pure authoritarian tyranny. All we ever wanted from anybody in this world is to trade with them: give us a chance to sell them our goods, buy theirs, and have them behave reasonably decently to other countries.
Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.
The Muslim residents of the middle East have been sold for so long on theocracy they think it's the greatest. And we've got a tough sales job. What is so different about that and what Pat said?
Y'all want to run the jackass down so much...he's a legit thinker, if one you don't like. Give his words a thought. You don't have to agree with him on the big stuff, but on something little like this, you have to split hairs? It's not like it's Kerry who came out saying the war would be tough. After all, Buchanan has from what I understand endorsed Bush.
What a sad state of affairs is American politics when a comment like this becomes a rallying cry for all the President's men. Is the Iraq war indefensible in light of this statement? Hell, no. Why is it such a bad thing to say that freedom isn't free, even when we're bringing it to other people?
Pat might be wrong about the war but he isn't wrong about the fact that it will be a long, tough war ahead, and anyone who says different is either blowing smoke at you or inhaling it himself. I'd love to think that the Muslims in Iraq will just get democratized and quit their messin' around. But there are too many illiterate, uneducated hooligans there who need something to do, and whackin' on Uncle Sam qualifies, especially when the local mullah says you get your own 40 virgins and a mule in heaven.