It is (Almost) Time to Start Gloating

When the Washington Post starts to see things in the Middle East going according to George W. Bush's plan, you know it's only a matter of time before more liberals hop on the "We're winning the War on Terrorism" and "Democracy for All" bandwagon. From Volume 11 or 12 in the series of "Maybe Bush Was Right" commentaries (with many more to come):

As thousands of Arabs demonstrated for freedom and democracy in Beirut and Cairo last week, and the desperate dictators of Syria and Egypt squirmed under domestic and international pressure, it was hard not to wonder whether the regional transformation that the Bush administration hoped would be touched off by its invasion of Iraq is, however tentatively, beginning to happen.

Those who have declared the war an irretrievable catastrophe have been gloating for at least a year over the supposed puncturing of what they portray as President Bush's fanciful illusion that democracy would take root in Iraq and spread through the region. They may yet be proved right. But how, then, to explain the tens of thousands who marched through Beirut last Monday carrying red and white roses and scarves -- the colors of what they call the "independence intifada" -- and calling for "freedom, independence and sovereignty" from neighboring Syria? Or the hundreds of Egyptian protesters who gathered that same day at Cairo University, in defiance of thousands of police officers, to chant the slogan of "kifaya," or "enough," at 76-year-old President Hosni Mubarak?

One thing is for certain: None of this would be possible if George W. Bush hadn't given the order to destroy the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden's terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan, and then send a quarter-million US troops into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. Diplomacy is by far a better choice for resolving disputes than war. But diplomacy without the credible threat of war means nothing.

Meanwhile, many Democrats and liberals are left dumbfounded and scratching their heads, wondering what to say next. If recent history is a guide, they're going to fall back on the "accident of history" argument, as they tried, unsuccessfully, to do with Reagan.

This should be a serious warning sign to the liberals. They're not just on the wrong side of US politics anymore. Their whole ideology is facing irrelevance and utter failure on a worldwide scale.