Martin Peretz of The New Republic notes the unwillingness of his fellow liberals to give George Bush his props for having the vision and courage to attempt what everyone else, on both the left and right (including me) thought was impossible; bringing real change to the culture of the Middle East:
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?
Read the whole thing. (By the way, what does "props" mean? And why am I talking like I'm a teenager?)