Arrogance.

So, who cares if everybody believed that Saddam Hussein stockpiled WMDs? Now that it has turned out that there was none of the sort in Iraq, you give us lame excuse for the invasion? You propped up peripheral issues to divert attention to the truth that it was not really about WMDs but about toppling the intransigent Saddam, who was a US creation, in the first place!

Funny, today, you are trying to make democracy a sentimental issue to cover up the arrogance of invading Iraq. Stick to your arguments.

Well, calm down, meandering shawarma. Here, read the GDN report instead:

'Stay on course for democracy'
By TARIQ KHONJI

MANAMA - The spread of democracy in the Arab world may be slow and painful, but countries should stay the course, says a US think tank scholar.

The toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his replacement with an elected government may herald more changes across the Arab world, says American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Joshua Moravchik.

He said Arab countries should not expect an easy ride. But the long-term benefits of instituting successful democracies should outweigh the costs.

"On the whole, the birth and growth of democracy has usually been a process of struggle. Democracy will not come all at once," Mr Moravchik said yesterday.

There are currently relatively few 'free' countries in the world, he said, citing studies by non-partisan US think tank Freedom House.

"Freedom House finds that there are 89 'free' countries in the world, meaning countries that have democracy and also the full protection of citizens' rights," said Mr Moravchik.

"It also finds that there are another 33 countries that are "electoral democracies" and only 'partly free'.

"These are almost all new democracies, where rule of law is not fully reliable and where the citizens may not be fully educated about their rights.

"In all these places, progress will, of course, come one step at a time."

Mr Moravchik was speaking to Arab journalists via a live Web chat organised as part of a US State Department programme to strengthen dialogue with people from this part of the world.

It is par to a series of online talks being organised with various groups in the Arab world. The hope is that it will prove cheaper and more efficient than physically making speakers travel around the world.

During the chat, Mr Moravchik also defended US President George W Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

Journalists questioned the US government's motivation in invading Iraq, especially since no large stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were ever found.

"The Americans were not the only ones who believed Saddam had WMD. All of the major powers, including those who opposed the US action, believed it, too," he said.

"Moreover, investigations found that Saddam's own commanders also believed it! But the larger reason was that Saddam was the most violent defier of international law in the region and a life-long supporter of terrorism.

"He was the arch example of the kind of aggressive Middle Eastern tyrant whom the US was no longer willing to tolerate after 9/11.

"We take terrorism very seriously. 9/11 was the worst attack in America's history. We were no longer willing to tolerate regimes that supported terrorist groups, and we were particularly afraid of regimes that were developing WMD."

However, Mr Moravchik admitted that it was not yet clear how successful America's foray into Iraq will be.

"I think we do not know yet whether America has succeeded or failed in Iraq, and we will not know for a couple more years," he continued.

"If we leave Iraq with an elected government that is able to defend itself against terrorists and violent resistance, then we will have succeeded.

"If we leave Iraq in flames, then we will have failed. I think we will succeed. But the end is surely not certain."