Yes, a poisoned Palestinian political culture opted for Hamas in a free election in early 2006. This is what it is: an expression of the malady of Palestinian politics. The larger case for democratic reform is bigger, and nobler, than the state of Palestinian politics.
The Bush Doctrine brought about a veritable reversal in the realm of ideas: here was a conservative President asserting that freedom can travel to distant shores, that we can take it to strangers beyond, and here were his liberal critics at home falling back on a surly argument that Iraq, Lebanon, and other Arab and Islamic domains offer insurmountable obstacles to the spread of freedom.
Those in the know—and those who pretend to be—have written and spoken about the influence exercised by the Egyptian thinker and pamphleteer Sayyid Qutb (executed by the Nasser regime in 1966) on the course of modern Islamism. This is good as far as it goes. What is needed is a more sustained analysis of the depth of Egyptian radicalism

Bush may use the line that he wants freedom?democracy in all countries. He may even believe this himself. If that be the case, there are many countries that don't have oil that could do with a change in govt. So why is he not interested in them? Those that control him use chaos to ruin whatever govt is in power, to make it easier to exploit those countries.
His entry into Iraq was planned before he attained power. The fact that Greenspan set the economy moving with the cheap housing loans was simply to convince the people that America could afford the war. 9/11 gave him the excuse (thus all the conspiracy theories).
The argument would also run with the muslim dominated govts.

Every time there is an economic boom they say "This time it's for real, there's no way it will burst this time. We've learned enough to stop the bubble bursting."
They always burst, and they're found to be full of hot air.
The same applies to Dictatorships and Empires.