Positive Press- Time Magazine praises the "Bush Doctrine"

In an article in Time Magazine in March of 2005, columnist Charles Krauthammer criticizes the liberal media for their harsh critiques of the "Bush Doctrine," as Krauthammer views the doctrine as a success in the Middle East at this time. He praises Bush for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because they allowed the U.S to be able to spread democracy to the Middle East and hold free elections, which countries had already begun at this time. Krauthammer does bring up some valid praises for Bush and the Bush Doctrine and their initial ability to take down tyrannical governments and install free elections in the Middle East, but I believe that he is making hypocritical statements at the same time. The author criticizes the liberal media for jumping to bad conclusions before the war in Iraq was over but Krauthammer is doing the same thing. He is proclaiming the U.S as "the Great Liberator" of the Middle East and also Bush and his Doctrine as the source for this liberation, which for me being able to look back on this article four years later, it is clear that the author is jumping to conclusions. The Iraq War is still far from over and the Middle East is still far from being stabilized, so it appears the liberal media was correct in their warnings about invading Iraq and the consequences that would follow. This is a good article pointing to some of the positives put forth by the Bush administration though. And here's a small part of the article, which is called "THREE CHEERS FOR THE BUSH DOCTRINE" and the URL:

"They warned us darkly that the alternative to the status quo was the seething Arab street--an unruly mob, anarchic, anti-American, pan-Arabist or perhaps Islamist, ignorant of all liberal traditions and ready to rise up against America should it disturb the perfect order of things by "imposing democracy."
Turns out, the critics, liberal and "realist," got the Arab street wrong. In Iraq and Lebanon, the Arab street finally got to speak, and mirabile dictu, it speaks of freedom and dignity. It does not bay for American blood. On the contrary, its leaders now openly point to the American example and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom.
What really changed in the Middle East? The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine. First, that the will to freedom is indeed universal and not the private preserve of Westerners. And second, that American intentions were sincere. Contrary to the cynics, Arab and European and American, the U.S. did not go into Iraq for oil or hegemony, after all, but for liberation--a truth that on Jan. 31 even al-Jazeera had to televise."(Time Magazine, March, 2005, Charles Krauthammer).

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html