Headline: The New Republic defends Bush

"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. "And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids? "No, the president has not discovered a cure for cancer. But there is a pathology, a historical pathology, that he has attacked with unprecedented vigor and with unprecedented success. I refer, of course, to the political culture of the Middle East, which the president may actually have changed. And he has accomplished this genuinely momentous transformation in ways that virtually the entire foreign affairs clerisy--the cold-blooded Brent Scowcroft realist Republicans and almost all the Democrats--never thought possible...." Those are not the words of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or any big Bush supporter. It was written by Martin Peretz the editor of The New Republic. Pretty good! A liberal giving President Bush credit! (Not as choice as if it were The Nation, as I was thinking.) (I had to register to read this story. Free.) Thanks to Ron of Horologium for the correction. Giving George W. Bush His Due on Democracy - the Politics of Churlishness