(First §) BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ, neoconservatives argued that the road to solving the Palestinian problem went through Baghdad; that is, unseating the Iraqi regime (and defeating Al Qaeda) (Doran 2003). For the uninitiated, the argument might have been cogent. It certainly was appealing. And some, such as Fuad Ajami (2003), connected the invasion of Iraq with the fight to bring democracy and freedom to the Arabs. Implicit in much of this is the orientalist (Said 1978) notion that the West is superior to the East. It is a twist on the saying, ‘East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet, except that in this case the magnanimous West is willing to help elevate the East to its own level. The notion of democracy received impetus from Natan Sharansky’s book (2004) which, we were told, created a lasting impression on President Bush. The book was publicized, in the US media at least, as advancing the thesis that peace can be only be made with democratic countries. In other words, peace with countries that are less than ‘democratic’ is a waste of time, or practically impossible! The way in which the media (the fourth estate) were complicit in promoting such a theme is interesting. It was as though critical thinking had been suspended in favour of ideology, stereotyping and anti-intellectualism.