Bush and the Neocons definitely seem to have been right in their observation that there were cracks in the foundantions of Islamic fundamentalism. A good book making this argument is Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam by the French political scientist Giles Keppel.

That said, I think that there are still a whole lot of legitimate complaints about Bush's foreign policy during the last four years. For example, if the goal of invading Iraq was really to bring about a wave of reforms in the Middle East, why was the invasion premised on the factually shaky WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda-link arguments?

If the recent signs of reform end up being the start of long-term democratic changes, Bush will be able to say he took a gamble and won. But let's not forget that invading Iraq was, and still is, a hell of a gamble. I personally believe that the WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda-link arguments for invading Iraq have done as much to hurt public trust in our government as anything since Watergate.

Instead of asking "how could the left have been so wrong about President Bush," the real question Bush supporters are asking seems to be "why doesn't the left forgive him for exaggerating the WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda-link rationales for invading Iraq?" I have friends and family who don't hold that against Bush, and I accept that viewpoint, but it's going to be very hard for me to get past.

Taking a more consistent position on promoting democracy is a good start, and that's why it was so important that Bush criticized Putin's "retro" approach to governing Russia.

Actually what recent events show is democracy would have increased in the Middle East even if the US hadn't invaded Iraq.

Arafat still would have died.

Democracy and human rights activists would still have done their organizing. A fraction what the US has spent on the war could have done a lot to help them.

Saddam probably would still be in power (though who really knows), but he would have continued to be contained. But the hostility towards the US caused by the war wouldn't be as bad.

Yes, Arafat would still have died, but if Saddam was still in power, would so many in the ME even try to make a change, and would so many who would deter them now be so hesitant to do so. To say things would have changed without the catalyzing events of Saddam's downfall is to be painfully ignprant of ME history, and to be hopefully naive in looking at humna natiure and ME politics.

I agree with steve to some extent.

It's true that the seeds of democracy had already taken hold in the arab world before hand. But only seeds mind you. (Iran is an example). The younger generation was looking to make moves towards a freer society.

However, these are merely seeds and the people of these countries needed time to see them into fruition. It's important that they feel ownership over thier fate/future, and past. An American invasion has only scared many (if not most) arabs into a hatred of western society. PErsonally, I dont blame them for these feelings.

Bush fans keep saying that this recent Iraq election is evidence that democracy is working. This is such transparent crap. A democracy needs to take hold and last.

I sure hope it does work, but for gods sake its way too early (about 15 years too early) to say that it was successfull.

A slower, more gradual, arab governed transition would be more approrpriate. America could have assisted in this transition by providing support and incentives. This would allow the arab societies to progress on its own, at its own rate etc.

"I voted for President Bush both times"

Me, too. Supported McCain in 2000, but voted for Bush in November, and haven't looked back since...

However, I might very well support a McCain candidacy in 2008...

Sure gradual change is preferrable, but the glacial pace of waiting for Arafat, Saddam, and the rest to die in office and hope that what came next would be better was not the right train to get on. When Hafez Assad died, what changed in Syria except for the name plate on the Presidential door? You gradualists are all content to dream your dreams of better days to come, but won't do a thing to make them reality, go back to sleep, we'll wake you when it's time.

the enema was necessary, I now believe more strongly than ever

First, here is the link to the article by Rich Lowry. Please check it out as it is a very good read.
National Review Article

With regards to all of the positive changes in the Middle East, I too believe that more important is that these fantastic changes stick. The fall of the Berlin Wall would have meant nothing if Germany resumed their previous political split/stance. Only time and determination will tell if the people of the Middle Eastern countries really do want their freedom.

What I do not believe is that everything would have fallen into place had it not been for the support and optimism of the President. Can you (or anyone) honestly say that he had nothing to do with the current changes affecting the entire landscape of the Middle East? Do you really feel that it was all luck resulting from George Bush's role of the dice into Iraq? No one is that lucky.

"Can you (or anyone) honestly say that he had nothing to do with the current changes affecting the entire landscape of the Middle East? Do you really feel that it was all luck resulting from George Bush's role of the dice into Iraq? No one is that lucky."

I don't think anyone is saying Bush deserves no credit for the new reforms in the Middle East. But there are a lot of people saying that he deserves all of the credit (when there are dozens of factors that go into these kinds of changes), and/or that the new reforms justify every aspect of the Iraq invasion.

When you are done reading the National Review article by Rich Lowry, be sure and stop by here for a perspective on his credibility.

Eric, when you say "the enema was necessary," are you referring to Bush?

just a joke, son

Richard Porter: what kind of looney evangelist are you? The majority of people of your political perspective seem to spend way too much time banging on at great length about things which are infinitesimally small movements and blowing them up into solid achievements.

There are probably relatively few sane people who don't want peace in the middle east, and probably don't care about the political persuasion of whoever can get the job done.

frankly, what sticks in the throat the most is the offensive presumption of superiority that seems to permeate every level of american society. and even if it were so, which i frankly don't believe, it is the height of ignorance and rudeness to go on and on about it all the time.

it's like being cornered by some self-centred creep who can't stop talking about how great they are and all the wonderful, to them, things they are doing.

Why can't you all shut up until something has actually been achieved, like peace in the mideast; then you'll get, and deserve, all the praise in the world...

ps: isn't obsessively talking about one's self all the time, and making a victory mountain out of every procedural molehill a sign of some deep rooted insecurity or identity crisis? rofl

Alienboy

I am assuming your typing your comments from either prison or an insane asylum.

Regarding your comments, I feel nothing but pity for extreme liberals (such as yourself) who hate so much and are so negative about positive MAJOR not minor changes occuring in the world.

Lastly, I do not believe the name of any of my posts are about me, usually they are about other things with my opinion blended in. Feeling a little insecure are you?

If you don't like it, go comment on topics you are familiar with: hate crimes, left wing liberalism, sex dolls and lonely alienboys who spend all day typing out their hateful nonsense.

Richard Porter: I am assuming you're typing your comments from some concrete bunker 20 miles underground.

I'm not an extreme liberal, whatever the heck that is, and the only thing i said disliked was the offensive presumptious arrogance of your post. your subsequent comments only confirm that you believe too much and know too little. shame.

I have no idea what your 3rd sentencew above is meant to mean, so i can't respond to that.

i think you'll find that one of the fouinding principles of blogcritics is that it should be a virtual community of peope with different views.

If you can't handle the concept that other people can and do have different views, it's you that needs to get out of here rather than simply trying to be insulting - which, by the way, you don't do very well either. bogstandard reactionary name-calling? have to do a lot better than that son

AlienBoy

My posts are written to invite intelligent discussion and certainly I enjoy reading about other points of view. However, there are too many persons such as yourself that decide to "attack" with false presumtions and accusations or other nasty comments. Ever hear of the word subtlety? And what you deem as arrogance, I see as the confidence in my beliefs and convictions.

To say Bush was right or is it far right is to close your eyes to the death of our soldiers and the 11000 wonded and maimed plus the 100000 Iraqis we have killed in the name of freedom ...How could the right say God is on our side with all the innocent lives we have ruined..there is no doubt in my mind that we have created terroists from the families of those we have killed and the money we have spent over there to rebuild what we have destroyed just boggels my mind..money that we don't have and if we did it should of been spent on this countries problems ...If this country is so pure and bent on setting ppl free no matter what the cost than please answer this one question..why has this country not tried to save the ppl in the Sudan ..Millions have been killed and are starving and it does not even make the news..Iraq was never a threat to us and the lives and money spent there is a waste...will bush defend Taiwan ? I doubt it because China has an Army and ours is being wasted in Iraq..

Georgio - every time you repeat the 100,000 Iraqis killed figure you give Bush more legitimacy. If his opponents have to resort to such transparent lies to condemn the war in Iraq then people see through it and conclude that Bush must be right.

So good work.

Dave

Iraq was not a threat to us? Ever hear of Sadam Hussein?

As for the families left behind and the possibility that they then grow up to become terrorists. Well, I do not subscribe to that theory.

If Iraq's government stays stabilized and allows for freedom for all of it's citizens, I believe that would offer alot of hope and optimism for anyone in that country.

Theoretically (which is all we can base anything on until the new government matures), they would therefore be less likely to grow into terrorism then if we just "killed" 100000 (as you put it) and left behind the same form of repressed government under the Hussein regime.

Regarding the Sudan, I agree that the US should step in and become involved, but I also feel that we have spread ourselves out quite a bit and really should stay on the side of caution until we receive some closure on some issues.

Finally, loss of life is not something that anyone can cheer about (I know I do not). If you could take a step back and view the Middle East landscape and see the dramatic changes that have taken place over the last twelve months, you can see that they have not died in vain. I appreciate what they are doing and support them 100%. Their contributions will lead to one of the biggest historical achievements for peace and freedom that we will ever see in our lifetime

Sorry guys, I don't feel even remotely safer with Bush in power. He has formally antagonized every arab power, which isn't a biggie. However, in his quest to do so he pissed off most of our good allies as well.

North Korea and Iran both proudly proclaim they have the bomb. Gee, how is that a security victory for the US? We are so far in debt that the dollar is shit. What exactly has this president brought us? Prosperity? nope. Democracy anywhere? nope. Geesh, how about some cheap gas? nope.

Sorry. In my eyes this president and his administration are a MONSTER failure with zero regard for a single working human being on the planet. They work for corporations, and I don't think the free market solves a damn thing when the free market has moved offshore. As the onion said it so well years ago, our long national nightmare of peace and proserity is finally over! Read the annotated foornotes on that one, btw. Though written as satire four years ago, it has come to pass almost verbatim.

Lono

So he has anatagonized the Arab world? Who exactly? Iraq (new government, free elections)? Lebanon (pushing for freedom)? Palestine and Israel (peace talks resuming, free elections in Palestine)? Afghanistan (free elections, al Qaeda crushed)?

"However, in his quest to do so he pissed off most of our good allies as well."
So that would be France and Germany? With friends like these...

"North Korea and Iran both proudly proclaim they have the bomb. Gee, how is that a security victory for the US? We are so far in debt that the dollar is shit. What exactly has this president brought us? Prosperity? nope. Democracy anywhere? nope. Geesh, how about some cheap gas? nope."


I do believe that there is a group of countries speaking to North Korea and attempting to force them to stop. Iran has sanctions against them and also a group of countries are in conversations with them.

As for democracy, take a look at the new look Middle East. The landscape has changed dramatically.

Cheap gas? The war is not about getting cheaper gas and we are looking at new forms of fuel (hydrogen) and also at drilling in Alaska.

As for the free market, open your eyes nice and wide and say hello to the GLOBAL MARKET. The world has changed a bit on the last hundred years.

Bush is having a pretty good year. Speaking as a liberal, it is not this recent success I object to. It is the growing condescension that comes from the right when they speak about these policies. If some members of the left are guilty of chaffing at the recent events in the middle east, an equal number on the right have outright ignored some major problems with this administration over the past 4 years.

1. We went to war under false pretenses. The President has said as much. Perhaps the WMD issue was easier to justify to the American people than liberation. The fact remains that we had large ulterior motives for the invasion. I concede that freeing a oppressed people is a laudable goal. But if the president is willing to use misdirection, might he not use it in others? These policies make it difficult to trust him.

2. We pushed for this war aggressively. Our discussion with the UN felt like little more than a formality. I was not at all surprised we chose to pursue war without their support.

This is one of the biggest flaws in Bush's character. He may preach freedom, but he pursues his goals like a dictator. Whether on the grand scale of the United Nations or on the local level with the Democrats, Bush has so far been alarmingly unwilling to follow any road but his own. I am glad to see this aspect of his policies seemingly being reigned in lately (as seen with the recent trip to Europe). But it came too late for thousands of our troops and billions of our dollars.

3. On the subject of the dollar, have you noticed the gaping debt we've accumulated over the past 4 years. Say what you wish about Democrats and their high taxes. The Republicans are much too hell bent on keeping taxes low while they pursue policies that require huge budgets. I had hoped the lessons of his father would have told Bush not to fight a major conflict (let alone two) if you aren't willing to pay the cost. Ah well...

4. These wars have spread us thin across the world. At a time when we find ourselves confronting powers like North Korea and Iran, I'm sorely missing the added leverage of a strong fighting force backing us. Obviously we could hold our own if a fight broke out. But our resources are still depleted much more than any of us want. And if another war breaks out, I keep wondering if we have the manpower to fight it without a draft.

There you go. Four big reasons why I'm not standing up and cheering for the recent turn of events. This is an inspiring turn of good fortune, but the President has made some huge mistakes along the way. And while I have reason to hope for a better four years, I also have reason to dread a worse four.

Scott

I can meet you half way on your points.

1. We went to war under false pretenses. The President has said as much. Perhaps the WMD issue was easier to justify to the American people than liberation. The fact remains that we had large ulterior motives for the invasion. I concede that freeing a oppressed people is a laudable goal. But if the president is willing to use misdirection, might he not use it in others? These policies make it difficult to trust him.

Perhaps you are not aware that President Bush, the U.S. intelligence and many other intelligence agencies in England, Russia, Germany and France all had the same information and all concluded that there were WMD's and it did pose a threat. Did you happen to forget the repeated warnings to Saddam Hussein over the last 15 years?


2. We pushed for this war aggressively. Our discussion with the UN felt like little more than a formality. I was not at all surprised we chose to pursue war without their support.

How can you even bring up a subject like the UN? Their credibility in the world died a long time ago and that notion only reinforced with the oil for food scandal which has been conveniently not been reported on nearly half as much as the "prison tortures" of our enemies during wartime. I chalk that one up to our wonderful left leaning media machine.


3. On the subject of the dollar, have you noticed the gaping debt we've accumulated over the past 4 years. Say what you wish about Democrats and their high taxes. The Republicans are much too hell bent on keeping taxes low while they pursue policies that require huge budgets. I had hoped the lessons of his father would have told Bush not to fight a major conflict (let alone two) if you aren't willing to pay the cost. Ah well...

I admit, the economy is still very much a wait and see situation. The Government says it has improved but I do not believe it has begun to trickle down to the middle or lower classes.


4. These wars have spread us thin across the world. At a time when we find ourselves confronting powers like North Korea and Iran, I'm sorely missing the added leverage of a strong fighting force backing us. Obviously we could hold our own if a fight broke out. But our resources are still depleted much more than any of us want. And if another war breaks out, I keep wondering if we have the manpower to fight it without a draft.


You are right on the money with this one. The U.S. is too spread out and perhaps that explains the hesitancy to go headfirst into the Sudan problem and why we have grouped cloisters of countries to work with North Korea to pressure them to give up their weapons.