I’m hoping he gets some vindication, too. The alumni magazine from the U. of Chicago ran an article on Wolfowitz recently. In more recent issues, the magazine printed a series of letters to the editors that criticized the article and vilified the man. I remember one letter in particularly comparing Wolfowitz to a gangster and the administration to la Cosa Nostra. It was just a parade of vicious attacks on the guy.

So, yes, I hope he does get some vindication in his lifetime.

I would believe the Democrat change of heart a lot more if they would actually sponsor some aggressive foreign policy bills. For instance, somehow attempting to reign in Saudi funding of (Wahhabist) madrassas worldwide, and especially in America.

But I don’t put it past the Democrats to return to the centre. It is notable that Truman was furious at Churchill following the Iron Curtain speech, but within a year or two had enunciated the Truman doctrine. Which was followed for decades later by virtually every American president, repub or dem. Much as the democrats are co-opting the Bush doctrine.

If someone like Hillary runs for pres, it’s going to be a tight race. The republicans would be forced to run a centrist or lose. Such a result can only be good for democracy, and it would be a strong rap on the knuckles for Christians who think it was “moral values” that turned the election to Bush, and that they can erode the church/state separation.

“A dramatic string of positive developments in the Middle East in recent weeks seems to have deflated fierce criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.”

Translation:

“A dramatic string of positive developments in the Middle East in recent weeks seems to have ruined the coverage of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.”

I hate to be a grump, but this is VERY careful:

” Well, it is working. Whether by design, or by accident, it is working. The fact that the President has spoken out, where in the past the US policy has winked at Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, because of their massive security, and we have energy interests there, we have military bases, we kind of said, “OK, it’s alright not to be democratic. The President, in talking about freedom and democracy, is sparking a wave of very positive democratic sentiment that might help us override both Islamic fundamentalism that has formed in that region, and also some of the hatred for our policies of invading Iraq.”

He is NOT crediting the invasion of Iraq – just Bush “speaking out” about democracy. As a matter of fact, this speaking out is doing a great deal to relieve the “hatred for our policies of invading Iraq.” It’s not, say, that invading Iraq and having free elections there convinced people that Islamic fundamentalism might be overriden and that our policy of invading Iraq was well intentioned. It’s all in the “speaking out.”

I strongly disagree. The behavior of schools of fish is actually pretty interesting…

Hey, don’t be dissin’ great-granpa. Work was hard to come straight off the boat…

And the Democrats are coming around?

Too late.

Isn’t there an old Democratic slogan: “Who was with me before Chicago?”

When they could have stood with the Administration and troops, when it counted, before the world, they were frothing at the mouth with Ted or sniveling about how we could have brought that statue down for a lot less money with Nancy *stare* Pelosi.

My votes in ’06 and ’08 will be votes to hold the Democratic party accountable.

I agree with many of the previous post’s that the left is beginning the process of creating the myth that Bush had little or nothing to do with the flowering of democracy in the ME. After the Iraqi election I saw a democratic flack claiming that Sistani forced Bush into holding the election. It is true that Bush was going to delay the elections by a couple months. But the very side that was praisng Sistani didn’t want the election held at all. It was the conventional wisdom of the bulk of the Democrats and the majority of the op-ed sections of the MSM that the creation of the interim government was premature, Then when Bush was holding fast to a January election most of them howled that Bush was being stubborn and he was refusing to see what the majority of the left and the UN considered reality that the elections could not be held with the security situation as it was. MSM and the Dems to Bush. The interim government is a US stooge operation and will not willingly give up power. The january elections are a pipe dream and will be a failure. Bush is stubborn and refuses to face the truth. Iraqi elections are a smashing success. Well things are not as rosy as they appear and Bush deserves no credit for ignoring our foolish advice and we really supported the elections anyway. Reactionaries never let facts get in they way of their rhetoric.

P.S.- Chris Matthews has breaking news. Al Gore will not run in 2008. Congratulations on being two years behind the blogs on political news Chris!

However, he is still supporting John Kerry in 08. One can only ask so much.