Yes, and if it weren't for the US protecting them, who knows what the Europeans might do to the Saudis? (Probably nothing, but at least the option would be available).

There's a really simple solution, but it's not easy: do what the Europeans do; tax the heck out of gasoline to limit the power of bad actors in the region to control our foreign policy.

If gas was already $6/gallon, we wouldn't care if bombing the Saudis (who were, frankly, the real cause of 9/11) would spike oil prices. $6 to $7 isn't going to kill us, assuming we were already adjusted to $6.

Interesting. I always thought of Cheney as a pretty standard issue Realist hawk, given his roles in the Ford and Bush I administrations.

The PNAC principles are such that they could be interpreted very widely. Indeed, I agree with them as stated. The aggressive Wilsonian spin of the Kristols and Wolfowitzes is another matter, entirely.

U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion.

But look who was:

Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner

John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz

R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

If Bush didn't intend using the military for nation building, why did he hire so many who strenuously advocated it?

Regards, C

It also belies the cartoon view that dissent is unwelcome.

I don't think you can get there from the article you quote. Indeed, a part you don't quote is quite explicit that Rice had to expend considerable political capital to get her choice over Cheney's preferred neocon non-dissenters. The most you can say is that dissent is welcomed by Rice. But that dissent is quickly stifled as soon as Rice tries to take it out beyond her own domain.

I've said before that Rice could be a great stateswoman, the real find of the Bush years, if only she wasn't so utterly submissive to her work-husband.

If Cheney wasn't a neocon before 9/11, what was he doing signing the Project For The New American Century's "statement of principles" in 1998?

Regards, C

"Support of repressive regimes" = relying on regional powers for stability

"Occupation of Muslim lands" = troops in KSA intended to contain Saddam and forces all over the region intended to foster stability and counterbalance Iran

The neocons may be responsible for the American component of the mess in Iraq but the foreign policy realists are the architects of our problems in the region, which go back long before neocons held sway.