The world doesn't the USA because Saddam Hussein merely apparently didn't possess WMD of global scale at time of invasion.
The world through the United Nations, as well as even Senator Durbin prior to 2001, had laid out a sufficient cause to remove Hussein WMD or not; gee, after that lil' 'ol thingy no bigger than say cohetes flushed down a terlet...commonly known as 9/11...when United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix was getting the run around from Hussein, Hussein thusly bluffing he had them love of Qaeda or not and love of Qaeda or not the world better respect HIM personally or risk WMD attacks, even Democrats and I took Bush descriptions of possible WMD as what COULD happen but the USA doesn't cave into bluffs. Of course, even Democrats and I back then also knew some nature of Iraq stability would be necessary and well knew of the so-called "Muslim sect separatism/civil war" quotient in the Mid-East and present for millenia; everyone in charge knew such things, including Democrats, and at the time nobody ran around saying "now let another Saddam Hussein take over, even if from Iran or Qaeda, and even if it reduces the world's diversity of oil producers while robbing Iraqis of resources".
Today, that's changed. As if retroactively, Democrats and non-Conservatives now say they are sorry to bin Laden (Obama speech to atheists) as they verily believe not only weren't planes involved in 9/11 but neither was Qaeda ( as H.R. 1955 suggests, some believe USA nationals, immigrants, or both caused 9/11 and that Bush is using PATRIOT for political leverage against Qaeda and foreigners instead of letting domestic officials play tough daily with their constituents); they tell us, if quizzically then, at the same time Hussein was a great guy, a bucko who hated Qaeda; Clinton NATO commander and former four-star general Wes Clark, father of VoteVets, WESPAC (which for years says "Help Wes Clark Elect Democrats", so no bias or kneejerks possible in THAT military opinion), Center For American Policy ( a private Clinton thinktank ), and StopIranWar, through said organizations and their candidates are actually representing that Democrat apologies to Qaeda are making it way tougher to belay Mid-East opportunists, so heck...bring them thar troops home, but could you blame Bush and the GOP for their ever going there? Please? It would be so sweet if a Democrat got in and Wes and his loyalists got State Department-level positions and left the drudgery of everyday civilians to politicians...who of course tell us borderless subprime government-owned housing and healthcare should be the ONLY commerce beyond officials the USA should ever have again, Wes Clark et al available to come out and say "boo!" if you don't think that necessary to USA national security as any fool can see no country would want Americans as consumers again and would attack at first signs of our self-suffciency.
Today, USA MSM and local CLTV show some in Pakistan holding signs blaming Bush for Pakistan's problems. Yet those signholders praise Bhuto's return, Bhuto and Mushareff distinguishable only by names since they ruled the same way. Also, Mushareff appeared before there WAS a President GW Bush; Clinton isn't the real reason Pervez rose, is he? I don't think so, any more than is Bush. Such sign wavers ignore say China in protests, apparently unable to see how China arms Pervez so heavily to effectuate non-democracy, inter alia...perhaps the latest riots and crushings are "Bush's fault" because he made the people of Pakistan aspire to their inclusion in their own government, it didn't happen, so look what's going on. And as with Iran and North Korea, whatever else you think about China, the Chinese are not about to let revolutionary types possess WMD...they did not oppose U.N. resolution enforcement on Hussein's bluffs on such grounds, either...and China has not yet indicated a fear revolutionaries are about to control all that military hardware in Pakistan. So again, while attack by Pakistan doesn't exist TO be avoided, if anyone wants to say Bush caused Pakistan's dictatorial way of life and can make pain felt across the globe by those dreaming of democracy go away by giving up on it and free trade, it may not fit facts and might not be a great 2008 campaign tool.
The last conundrum I saw lately was Democrats concurrently applauding the prison sentence starting today for former IL Governor George H. Ryan (R), convicted of givng drivers licenses to illegal immigrants for commercial profit; then the same folks turned and applauded Democrat efforts to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants so they can participate in subprime and all other commercial profit enterprises.
In that Democrats and non-Conservatives appear to have nothing more than fruit salad out of their apples and oranges, as if throwing a bazllion darts with hope at least SOMETHING sticks prior to election day rather than offer a true plan for progress, and at needless complication of our troops' missions and free trade, I continue to support George W. Bush.