I'm not sold on the notion that Bush's policies are the sole reason for the recent 'democratic' developments in the Middle East. I believe that he's been overstating developments over there, equating them with the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The truth is actually a lot messier than that. Iraq held its first democratic election a month and a half ago, but yet no government has been formed. There are huge ethnic and religious cleavages that are very deep. Additionally, the Sunni insurgency has once again stepped up; they're hitting Shiite targets with the purpose of inciting a larger civil war that will undermine the government. In short, we shouldn't prematurely celebrate the rise of democracy in the Middle East. History shows that we've been taken by surprise many times, and the Sunnis, who are now out of authority, have traditionally been the power brokers in Iraq; they resent losing their major influence in Iraqi politics. The violence won't end because the majority of the population went to the polls; the root cause of the insurgency is an armed minority. Lets leave Iraq for now. In Palestine, US policy had almost nothing to do with the recent attempts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The death of Yassir Arafat and his replacement by Abu Mazen, who's more willing to negotiate with Israel, is the most important factor. American influence here has been negligible, just like Bush wanted from the beginning, and to an extent he was right, the parties needed to come to the table on their own. In Lebanon, the rise of the opposition to the Syria's military presence came as a result of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, an anti-Syrian former Prime Minister; this had nothing to do with US policy. Hezbollah, a Syrian supported political party and terrorist organization is far more powerful than the opposition. Lebanon has a very fragile balance between the hodgepodge of religious and ethnic groups living there; any disbalance will re-ignite the civil war which had ravaged that country for 15 years. Having an election doesn't necessarily that the country in question will become a republic that respects the rights of its citizens, especially minority rights. Remember, even Hitler was democratically elected. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are 2 countries Bush is pressuring to open up their political systems. Both countries are doing the least to comply with US pressure. Egypt is allowing elections, but all candidates have to be pre-screened. Saudi Arabia held municipal elections, but most of the winners were picked by the government and women weren't allowed to vote. Both countries are rightfully concerned that extremists will gain power and end up undermining movements that seek greater freedoms and democracy. Additionally, US support for democracy can be selective at times, a major contention is that such an approach is regarded as hypocritical. Such countries like Pakistan are ruled by US supported dictatorships; although this case is more fragile because this is a nuclear power and we don't want the atom bomb going into the wrong hands, which would likely happen if an extremist government comes to power. Libya is another so called triumph for Bush, but the reality of the matter is that the autocratic ruler Quddafi agreed to scale back his WMD programs because he was much less afraid of a US attack after the mixed results of the Iraq War. He only sealed the deal after it was agreed that UN sanctions against the country will be removed. Quddafi has also been trying to normalize relations with the West for years. Is this really a success in the war on terrorism? As Quddafi was telling us that he wants to stop supporting terrorism, he was planning an assassination of the leader of Saudi Arabia. There really haven't been many 'ripple effects' in the Middle East stemming from the elections in Iraq; in each case described above, there are other causes leading to these openings. Democracy by gunpoint is counterproductive, for it become associated with invaders seeking to impose their will on the people. Ironically enough, many pro-democratic movements distance themselves from the US, thus undermining our support in the region. The US cannot force democracy down peoples throats, liberty is important for everyone. I don't take the position that Muslims can't accept democracy, but doing so by force has lead to American becoming much less respected in the region. Democracy comes through leading by example and individual volition. You can't force freedom, otherwise it really isn't freedom.