Tom Friedman is not exactly known for sitting firmly in the conservative camp, and he had this to say about Bush's actions in the middle east: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1 "There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades. “Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”" ---------------------------------------------- It is amazing how, first, Bush's wars were horrible and iraq was a disaster. Then the libs started grudgingly admitting things were calming down there. Now they're starting to admit, "well, maybe the wars opened things up a bit..." It is so fucking hilarious the effect that the media-manufactured, irrational hatred of Bush has had on so many people, without them even grasping it. No matter what he did, even if it turned out positively, he was still "bad". Hysterical. In about 20 years, unless there is some major catastrophe, Bush's interventions into the middle east will be looked back upon as watershed events, that finally began to break the hold of the religious fanatics.