These are the exact words of a major presidential candidate: "I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, you should too... If we we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Believe it or not, those words were uttered in a presidential debate at Wake Forest University less than a month before the 2000 election - by candidate George W. Bush.

Even conceding the enormity of 9/11, the difference between what the candidate said and what he actually did as president could not be more striking. That's why picking the right person for that awesome job is such a difficult one.

Still, the fact that President Bush acted in ways absolutely contrary to his campaign statements does not diminish the face value of what candidate Bush said on the subject. In fact, his words should be a blueprint for the future foreign policy of the United States: do not try to impose American values on other countries; and be a humble nation, not an arrogant one.

It is self-evident, that the Bush crusade to democratize the world has been disastrous.

-Invading Iraq was bad enough. Trying to turn it into a Jeffersonian democracy to serve as a model for other Middle East autocrats was sheer folly. Iraq is a model all right an example for countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others in the region of precisely what they do not want to be.

-Forcing the Palestinians into a premature election which put the terrorist, anti- Israeli party Hamas into office was clearly unwise. Then refusing to accept and deal with the consequences of the vote further aggravated the Israeli-Palestinian dispute- plus exposed the U.S. to charges of hypocrisy.

-American meddling in Pakistan is not the direct cause of the rioting and killings that have followed the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. But Bhutto would not have been there campaigning to become prime minister again, had not Bush been pushing for elections. As part of that, America brokered a complex deal between Bhutto and President Musharraf designed to lead to their sharing power. Considering the fragility of Pakistan's democracy, that was a dangerous gamble.

With the voting now delayed until next month Pakistan's political future is under a heavy cloud.  al Qaeda and the Talaban continue to operate in its lawless North West border area with Afghanistan and Pakistan has nuclear weapons that may or may not be secure. That said, America's best interests, for the present at least, are better served by stability than by a shaky or sham democracy.

A less arrogant and more humble America would not have intervened so heavy-handedly in these places. So voters beware. Any presidential candidate who shows the slightest inclination to using American power to change other nation's regimes or political systems - ought to be viewed with extreme caution.