DougR: You are right of course that there is no inconsistancy in logic between Bush's statements because "not picking leaders" is different to "picking people who should not be leaders". On the other hand, if you do the second often enough, you end up with the first! Also, as kendall pointed out, the US is often prepared to support opposition groups against people they feel should not be leaders. This is, for all practical purposes, picking the next leader whether they are explicitly named or not.

It is also my opinion that it would be better for Iraq and for the world if Saddam was not leader. That does not mean I think it is therefore right to actively replace him. I am sure you will agree that such decisions are part of an immensely difficult moral area. Leaving the specifics of Saddam aside, there has to be a point at which we have no choice to but to interfere in another country - essentially when 'we' judge they are too great a threat to 'us'. I don't think many people would feel WWII was morally unjustified, for example. Equally, there are ways other countries can disadvantage us when we both agree it would be wrong to interfere. In between is a vast grey area. For my part, while I have many objections to how Saddam is behaving I do not yet feel we have reached the point of interfering.

I hope I have managed to keep the tone of this civilised - apologies if I haven't.