Still, some argue that a safer goal would be stability, especially in the Middle East. The problem is that pursuing stability at the expense of liberty does not lead to peace — it leads to September the 11th, 2001. ~President George W. Bush

That sounds an awful lot like saying that America “invited” the 9/11 attacks by pursuing “stability.”  But it would be terribly wrong of him to say something like that!  We know, because Rudy Giuliani said so.

Which explanation of the causes of 9/11 makes more sense?  Were the hijackers, particularly the 15 Saudis, objecting to Washington’s backing of the Saudi regime, or were they instead objecting to the American presence in the Gulf and our other Near Eastern policies?  Was Al Qaeda motivated by the lack of freedom in Saudi Arabia, or by something else? 

If Mr. Bush wants to invoke the causes of 9/11 to justify his foreign policy, he and his allies would need to be able to defend the claim that it was the pursuit of stability (which they have certainly abandoned) at the expense of democratic reform that led to the attacks.  Otherwise, this is not much more than some cheap demagoguery.