>America's primary purpose in assembling this alliance of peoples inside and outside Iraq is, plainly put, to stop a homicidal maniac and serial aggressor from gaining the power to threaten our cities with annihilation. A secondary purpose is to forcefully discourage any other nation from secretly supporting terror groups.
>The third purpose is driven not by any lust for global domination, but by out-and-out Wilsonian idealism: we want to make the Middle East safe for democracy. And not just for Israelis, who have shown how self-determination feeds both body and soul, or just for Kurds, who have made their "no-fly zone" into an example of free enterprise and self-government for all Iraqis (and all Palestinians).
These are a pair of fascinating paragraphs. The problem with Safire's argument is that, at least at the moment, no regional state agrees with that argument. And they are the most in jeapordy from Saddam. And, few if any international powers do.
Do you mean, no regional state agrees that these are Bush's intentions, or the regional states do agree that these are Bush's intentions, but no regional state agrees with the intentions?
In any case, I think you are conflating "agreement" with "publicly stated agreement", not at all the same thing. |
