Contradictory

Watching the Galloway and Hitchens debate, missing Last Days because of it...

Galloway (and the left in general) strikes me as taking two contradictory positions:

1. The reason autocratic governments in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world are in power are because of US support. Lefties argue the only reason Saddam was in power was because of US support and the only reason the Taliban were in power was because of US support.

2. At the same time, the argument against the war in Iraq is that the US government isn't capable of installing a democratic regime in Iraq. We are incapable of "spreading democracy," around the world, even if such a goal were desirable. We are incapable of securing Afghanistan, and incapable of transforming these places into amiable countries.

How can both of these premises be true? How can the US be the reason the Saudi Royal family rules Arabia (as Bin Laden argues), but not be powerful enough to install a democratic government in Iraq?