Meanwhile, Iraq's experiment in Arab liberty has had ripple effects beyond its borders, pushing the Syrians most of the way out of Lebanon, and in Syria itself significantly weakening Baby Assad's regime. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who's spent years as a beleaguered democracy advocate in Egypt, told the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland the other day that, although he'd opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, he had to admit it had "unfrozen the Middle East, just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did. Elections in Iraq force the theocrats and autocrats to put democracy on the agenda, even if only to fight against us. Look, neither Napoleon nor President Bush could impregnate the region with political change. But they were able to be the midwives."
Excellent point. Don't expect the media to report about the advances in the Iraq war, but only what they perceive as failure and doom and gloom of GW's war on terror. We know, however, that the reasons for this blatant omission is the media's political alliance with the Democrats and the Left. Their objective is to undermine the Bush presidency in the hopes that the Democrats will score better points next election when it comes to seats in Congress and the presidency itself.
These people are living in a world that is bankrupt from reality. No matter who's war it is, if it isn't fought for victory, then the ramifications will far outlast any administration that comes down the road.
These people doom themselves, and want to take the rest of us with them. We sure as hell are not going to allow that to happen!
You're so right, and I just don't understand why more people don't see this.