The Claremont's own Richard Reed has posted a reply to his colleague:
http://www.claremont.org/weblog/004593.html
"...Bush is no Wilsonian idealist who believes that multilateral approaches or international organizations are sufficient for keeping the peace. His critics are furious that, in the final analysis, the United States acted unilaterally in Iraq rather than waiting hopelessly for Russia, China and France to see the wisdom of intervention. The former two have long-standing interests in conflict with ours, and of course are despotic regimes driven inexorably toward conquest or recapturing past glory. The last has been hopelessly compromised by the presence of millions of unintegrated Muslims who hate the West, especially America, “the Great Satan.”
Indeed, as Europe’s appeasement of the Arab world, its growing Arab and Muslim immigrants, and its own declining birth rate threaten to turn that continent into “Eurabia,” it is clearly in America’s interest to strengthen democratic and liberal institutions there. The alternative is another world war with a Europe dominated by Islamo-fascists. Here support of what is the right of all peoples everywhere corresponds exactly with what it is in our interest. The moment we become indifferent to democracy in lands that can threaten our own, we increase the dangers of aggressive wars against us. As Churchill observed, the aggressive nature of the Nazi regime was a direct consequence of its tyrannical principles, as Ronald Reagan understood about the Soviet Union. The spread of democratic government, where possible and necessary, is always in our national interest."
I thought I might revisit this in light of the Hamas win in the Palestinian territory. Helprin is right. Hamas, like Hitler, were elected by popular vote. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't wish to harm, first Israel, and then us (linking up with their better armed buddies like Iran, Syria, etc.).