Today’s NYT editorial,
Still, this has so far been a year of heartening surprises – each one remarkable
in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is
entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It
boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the
West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences
that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no
democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in
power. Washington’s challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage
these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.I would say to the Times, it’s a surprise to some. Instapundit points us to this analysis from blogger Dale Franks,
Finally, the NYT is on board with Democracy promotion in the Mideast. Glad
to have you aboard, guys.They are certainly hedging on the side of pessimism,
and only giving grudging credit to the Bush administration, but it seems to be
getting into their heads that they may have been on the wrong side here, it
seems to me.And that bit about the Bush Administration taking a “healthy” share
of the credit? Nice understatement. Without the Bush Administration, none of
this would be happening. They deserve the primary share of the credit, along
with the governments of Tony Blair, John Howard, Alexander Kwasniewski and
others.