With the recent elections in Iraq and the street protests in Lebanon, as well as the Palestinian election that elected their new leader Mahmoud Abbas, it seems GWBush might be right and can be regarded as somewhat of a savior or visionary who has brought through democracy and thus given rise to fresh hopes of stability and prosperity to the Middle East. Finally.

Or is it? Checking through all the media coverage and articles from different sources, there're still questions and issues that need to be addressed and answered before writers can justify proclaiming the "successful" election in Iraq , GWBush can start receiving prizes and the public starts feeling stupid and Republicans can bask and gloat over their leader's glory.

The old, not so stale accusation of media bias arises here again, with the question: Why is it when the (pro-western opposition) people protest against the (not pro-western) government in Ukraine and Lebanon, it's considered "people power",regaled as the triumph of democracy and freedom and lauded with great fanfare whereas Hezbullah brings out at least half a million in Lebanon and it's considered manipulative and given scant coverage and publicity in the (mainstream) media?

Secondly, since when does holding elections albeit with substantial turnouts signify the coming of democracy and stability and prosperity? It is much too premature to assume elections and even democracy can substantially benefit the Middle East.

Then, if oppresive regimes or governments are overthrown and elections are really held in Lebanon and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Islamic parties win them, would the US and its allies accept this outcome and even if they did, how long would it be before they attempt to intervene/invade/interfere to install a "friendly" government/administration a la Chile or South Vietnam back in the days.

Iraq-there were large turnouts for their election and yes, under Saddam democratic elections would not be possible. This large electorate mostly had a main purpose and that is to have the americans leave. And yet, the US refuse to even consider a withdrawal plan or date. Is this democratic? The US invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam, and freed the people from tyrannic rule. Why did they do this though? Out of the goodness of their hearts, Saddam had Weapons of mass-destruction or links with terrorism?? Or because they could claim the gratitude and obeyance of the locals as their liberators, take control of the country, install their own approved stooge as leader, and exploit Iraq and its oil resources?

Ukraine-last fall there was a huge controversy concerning the election results (reminds me of something similar) which erupted with mass protests and rallies led by the opposition whose leader, a Victor Yuschenko claimed he was cheated because of balloting fraud, and who incidentally happens to be a pro-western pro-market economy guy. Termed the Orange Revolution, the media devoted lots of attention and headlines towards this and the common assumption was that the Russian-supported candidate, former Victor Yanukovych along with his Russian "patrons" had fixed the election results to prevent Yuschenko's victory. Yet behind all this Western freedom and people power versus Russian socialism and corruption plotlines was a more subtle manipulation at hand as described in this extensive article here and in the Guardian.