How much Mr Bush is responsible for these development is debatable. The peaceful uprising in Lebanon was provoked by outrage at the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which a Syrian hand is suspected, although not proven. Then the man who insisted on elections in Iraq when the US wanted to postpone or dilute them [really??] was Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, leader of Iraq's majority Shia community. And the death from old age of Yasser Arafat, not machinations in Washington, led to the election that might break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock.
Indubitably, however, even his most grudging domestic opponents and his harshest critics in the region admit that Mr Bush is also in part responsible. The 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been justified by a giant fraud, but that, and above all the January election to which it led, transfixing the Arab world, has proved a catalyst. (from the Independent)
Bush's critics are turning themselves into pretzels trying to portray him as having stumbled into this wave of freedom.
It's as if they were discussing a young woman who gets great grades, volunteers for good causes, and never causes her parents any problems. These shortsighted cynics would explain her success as due to her studying hard, choosing healthy friendships, and having access to good schools.
That would totally miss the point that she likely has good parents who nudged and fostered those successful habits in her. Like Bush, parents don't take credit for their children's success...but without their encouragement, sacrifices and prodding it probably wouldn't have happened.