Might you be at all familar with the earliest utterance of the statement, "freedom is on the march." As it turns out, there were a few unmentioned caveats with the Bush proclamation regarding freedom's march.
First, any government elected by its people must adhere to the principles set forth by the US government. In Palestine it is all to clear that the phrase, freedom ain't free takes on a whole new meaning when the US decides to punish the Palestinian people for electing a government led by Hamas. If only the people had voted to elect candidates that recieved campaign funding from the US government, they wouldn't have their current problems to worry about.
Then there is Iraq. Freedom is marching in a direction that is not in accordance with what the US had planned. Of course when freedom's march takes a path not in accordance with the US government it starts talking about cutting the flow of cash like it has with another recently mentioned nation. And this will only extend the US invasion and occupation for who knows how long.
It is pretty clear that the best client-states are those led by dictators who rule with a firm hand as evidenced by men like Pinochet, Somosa, the Shah, Noreiga, Marcos and Hussein.
Bush just might end up looking like Richard Nixon did some 30 years ago, standing in the White House claiming victory, followed by the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam.