What a ridiculously naive article. The implication that George Bush stands up for freedom in the face of "liberal" criticism. The author must have been reading too many White House press releases.

Behind all the Bush Administration's hot air about freedom in the Middle East are quiet deals with Central Asian dictatorships which have vast reserves of oil and strategic value being located close to the Middle East, China and Russia. And as for the reference to Reagan, well, I noticed there was no mention of that administration's support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War nor the funding of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Latin American dictatorships, the Contras in Nicaragua or the AWAC sales to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the War on Terror has lead Bush and his cronies to do sweetheart deals with Russia, China and Pakistan and have resulted in further attacks on political freedom in the name of fighting terrorism.

Meanwhile in the USA itself, the religious fundamentalists, aided by their puppet in the White House, are launching an attack on female reproductive rights and gay men and lesbians.

And don't get me started about Bush's economic incompetence. That's a topic in itself.

wow - I am amazed at the glossy revisionist history in this article. Just ask Latin America about the benefits of a US hegemony.

Yes America has and will make more mistakes both small and large to enormous & gigantic. Yes America has and will make decisions which in the main are good for America and Americans. Yes America has and will make deals with shadowy figures,disgraced leaders and out and out crooks & frauds.
Yet if not America in charge, then who??'friendly Russia,freedom loving China,thoroughly honest and incredibly decent France, cuddly Germany,NZ(ha-de-ha-ha)Australia, (give me a break)beautiful Britain, (failed badly previously)any islamic nation (we would all be moslems in short order or bombed silly),shadowy Canada, (yes that was a joke) Come on pick a nation who would do as good or better than America (and it hurts me to state this) Regards, numbat

I don't particularly want anyone in charge. It's one thing to study the dynamics of global political shifts. It's another thing to actually like it.

Look at it another way - the reality was that the Soviet armed forces removed the Nazis from Eastern Europe. But that didn't mean the people of Eastern Europe were obliged to enjoy the new reality. In other words, what happens in politics and what you would like to happen in politics are two different things. And, as I've said, Deane has ignored the broader reality of US foreign policy that aims to establish regimes it can better work with - rather than one's that are necessarily democratic.

Alexander,

As per Stephen Barton's article, this too is a very brave attempt, and despite your efforts you are going to find that you will be howled down.

The US is in an in enviable position. If the US acts, it's acting imperially and out of ('corporate') self interest. If the US does not act, then the rants and squeals follow about the US not acting and not behaving as the world's policeman!

At the end of the day, when there is a crisis, who are you going to call?

Roberto

Only the crimes of Israel & USA attract attention to the morally challenged (The Left).
The Syrian Army slaughtered 30,000 muslims in the town of Hama in Lebanon is 1982. A month later the Christian Miltias, supported by Ariel Sharon & Israel attacked a refugee camp & killed 5,000 people.
Which event receieved all the publicity?
Israel of course.
Forget the crimes of Assad. Forget the crimes of Syria