The Vindication of George Bush Continues

President George W. Bush was ridiculed for his idea that democracy in Iraq could take hold, flourish and spread. The liberal intelligentsia scoffed at the redneck cowboy from Texas and his un-nuanced line of thinking. In their minds, the only way to get any change was through negotiations (now it's unconditional negotiations). This in spite of the fact that Ronald Reagan proved the exact opposite 20-odd years ago.

Here's the proof that Bush was right:

Regardless of whether the current Iranian regime survives the uprising it provoked with its sham election, the events in Tehran are the latest affirmation of a pretty darn happy fact:

The first year of the post-Bush era is turning out to be a triumphant one for neoconservatism.

It is deliciously ironic that a doctrine America supposedly rejected, even though few really knew what it was, has emerged as a set of principles no one seriously questions as the world evolves to prove its wisdom. Indeed, in order to escape the political firestorm that nearly engulfed him this week, President Obama had to finally give in and talk like a neocon.

The liberal establishment and some conservatives laughed at Bush for his inane concepts, concepts that have borne fruit. Here's the gist:

...Now let’s deal with the one actually pursued by the administration of George W. Bush with the support of publications like The Weekly Standard and Commentary. The real neoconservatism simply held that the United States should support the advance of freedom and liberty throughout the world, wherever it can. It further posited that freedom and liberty are the God-given birthright of all people, and that – given the opportunity – people will always choose to be free. It further posited that when people become free, others see it, envy it and want it too.

The primary action for the United States in all this is to support democratic movements. Somewhere along the line, critics came to conflate this with the U.S. invading other countries and forcing them to accept our form of government. In fact, the two invasions that occurred during the Bush Administration were exceptions to the rule of how neoconservative goals are best achieved. We invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks because the people who ruled that nation were harboring our attackers. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement of 1991, and the United Nations sure as hell wasn’t going to do anything about it.

Please read the entire, excellent piece.

The overarching fact is that it worked in Iraq. How well? Well enough that Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani slammed the mullahcracy in Iraq and may well pave the way for a successful overthrow of the oppressive junta in that nation.

Those Crafty Neocons

Man, I knew us Neocons were sly but this tops even my best hopes. It seems that leading Neocons now have the ability to switch bodies and identities. Daniel Pipes has the story where Newsweek magazine got the captions for five out of six Neocons who are assiting Rudy Giuliani wrong. Check out this correction:

Editor's Note: In our print edition, several captions for the photographs accompanying this report were inadvertantly transposed. Martin Kramer's photograph is identified as Norman Podhoretz; Daniel Pipes's photograph is identified as Kramer; Peter Berkowitz's photograph is identified as Pipes; Nile Gardiner's photograph is identified as Berkowitz's and Podhoretz's photograph is identified as Gardiner's. NEWSWEEK regrets the errors.

Don't those people have editors? Oh yeah, they do so I would guess the only reason they made such a mistake is that their editing is as shoddy as there reporting and that's definitely saying something. I sure hope I never get mistaken for Podhoretz (no offense Norman).

More here.