The proof of the pudding

I wonder how people who opposed the war in Iraq and are now smugly patting themselves for their "insight" can deal with this kind of honesty (Via: Mick):

Interviewer:

What is the real reason that no Arab leader has visited Iraq? Why are there no [Arab] diplomatic missions in Baghdad? This question is being asked by people in cafés as well.

Dr. Ali Al-Dabbagh:

You are making me answer in a non-diplomatic manner. Brother, they are not happy about what happened in Iraq. One of them [Qadhafi] declared this in the Arab summit. He expressed sorrow over the execution of Saddam, and said: "Your turn will come." Of course, he forgot to mention that his own turn would come too. This reflects the position of the Arabs. The Arabs are not happy about what happened in Iraq, because this constitutes no less than an earthquake. In Arab and Islamic states, the rulers either inherit the regime or else they are empowered by Allah – from the days of Mu'awiya ibn Abu Sufyan to Saddam Hussein and those who rule the Arab countries today. They all believe they have a holy mandate to rule the people. In some Arab countries, the ruler makes people's lives difficult for 20 years, and every year, he changes the constitution. After what happened in Iraq, no one can ever do it again to the Iraqis. The Iraqis are the ones who will elect their president and their parliament. This is a new formula in the region, and the Arab brothers are not happy about it.

Clearly the peoples of the Middle East could wait for their leaders, holy-mandated by God to rule over others, to get enlightened. They don't know any better anyway, so why should anybody bother with accelerating their life into a more decent sort of existence?