The last thirty years of Middle Eastern history don't qualify in my book, and aside from frantic hysteria on what Saudi Arabia or Iran MIGHT do, not that much has actually changed. In fact, Libya has disarmed, Syria left Lebanon (until they realized we weren't as tough as we looked at the time), and the Intifada seems to have devolved largely into Palestinians shooting each other.

Also, I'm not impressed by a definition of "stability" that relies on stating that Saddam wasn't manufacturing and using nerve gas, developing nukes, invading other nations, engaging in terrorism, or obliterating entire populations--at the moment.

As for the Democrats, the only thing they have offered so far is drilling holes in the bottom of the lifeboats. Let me know when they come up with something else. None of them are looking at the larger picture.

Look at Iran. The liberal playbook is being followed to the letter. The U.N. is carrying the ball. How's that working?

I know you hate speculation, but...

Do you honestly think Iran would not be refining nuclear fuel if Saddam were in power? Why or why not?

And on a note related to Democratic solutions:

How much longer do you think we'll stay in Afghanistan once we surrender in Iraq?