I am probably too stupid to understand the concept of political progress. Just tell me how to deal with a simple obstacle - what if Iraqi people democratically vote for not being a democratic state. If approximately 60-70% of Iraqi population are shiits - they will overthrow any american-sought-after government in a single election. If people don't have any liberal ideas in their heads (and these are not easy ideas to adopt and to implement) - will Americans teach them? And besides, democracy refuses to reside in poor countries - only in those countries that can afford it and are willing to pay the price. It is not as simple as just-dont-harm-anyone approach.
Therefore, Bush's plan should have an important item, namely - twisting voting system for the sake of future generations...Ok! not forever, no - just for a couple of decades to come.

You are talking about the fear of all Islamic-majority countries - that the system will end up being one man (men only), one vote, one time. But that is not necessarily the case. Turkey currently has an Islamic party government and the democracy is still going. While Iraq is majority Shi'ite, there is no indication, in fact, the opposite is true, that they would choose a theocratic regime. Further, their Shi'ite neighbors in Iran have such a theocratic system and are anxious to get rid of it.

Even in America, we have a Constitutional system that protects minorities from the tyrrany of the majority - hence the importance of getting a Constitution in place before voting happens.

We have to be very careful in the beginning stages that the right system is set up, and that multi-parties are given time to form and not overwhelmed by religious groups that have a head-start on organization and foreign support.

I would also take issue with the idea that democracy requires wealth. I would actually say the opposite is true. There are many reasons why democracy has trouble getting started and that's a big discussion, but one of those reasons is that small, poor countries have trouble protecting themselves from foreign interference - but countries rarely have a protector like the USA to help foster their development.

The local ABC station aired the speech at 5 pm, one of the advantages of living on the Best Coast.

As to democracies, I agree with you. It requires not wealth but the willingness to speak your mind. Even the poorest can speak out.

Few objections:
1) Nothing will prevent Shiits from changing the constitution later. I imagine the demagogy behind these changes - for example, a reason that the original consitution doesn't reflect the cultural specificity of Iraq or has been brought artificially or some other rubbish like this. Iraqi democracy might disappear soon enough. There are yet no democratic institutions in Iraq!!!
2) Turkey is the only example of democracy among islamic countries so far. Their democracy is supported by secular military party which opposes religious groups.
3) Who said that islamic countries will never become democratic. Possibly, they will eventually (however, see below about it). Democracy will probably come to Iran. Another question - how long will it take to achieve? However, there is one more danger to islamic democracies: american influence. The more Americans interfere (for good or for bad) the more arguments are on the theocratic side. People advocating for the old way of governing a state would always point out at foreigners and say: they are the cause of our problems, not the political system, so, let's fight them first (or forever...). This is exactly what happens in Iran - they are fed up with foreing influence (British or American). They associate all evils in their country with western influence. So, the democracy in Iran will have a long way to go before settling down.
4) Poor people can certainly not only speak out, but also fight their way and eventually submit to tyranny. While USA admit the necessity of superior economic and fire-power in order to protect their democratic values, many western people refuse to admit that poor countries cannot have even very basic mechanisms for supporting democracy. For instance, all new democracies suffer badly from corruption on all levels caused by rediculously small salaries in public sector. Corruption leads to abusing power while pursuing personal interests. It happens in every state, but to different extent. Ability to stand out has to be supported, financed and protected. People in Afganistan prefer to produce heroin instead of developing free market, free economy etc. Without food and drinking water American democracy is just another way of aggression for them.
After all, we all know what K.Popper calls "hystoricism", don't we? I would prefer not to insist on inevitability of any state form, no matter how good and attractive it is.

A few short comments on your objections:

1) You're still assuminig the Shi'ites are of one mind. They're not, even they do not, as a majority, support a theocracy. Could it change later? I have no crystal ball. It depends on a lot of things.

There is democracy happening on a very small scale there, and there are institutions that can be co-opted for democratic purposes - tribal councils and the like.

2) Just because Turkey is the only, doesn't mean it will be the last. As to their military overseeing things...why, look who's already getting back in charge of sections of the Army, the Sunnis. There's your start of balance of power. It's complicated. Can I predict for sure? No. Better minds than mine have argued over whether Islam and democracy can truly coexist.

3) That may be true, but the fact is Iranians are very pro-American (see Nicholas Kristof's recent series of articles for just how much). As long as we are careful and don't go too far, we can have an influence. The building-blocks of democracy already exist in great measure in Iran, they've just been co-opted by the theocrats. They're not that far off.

Yes, America and others can always be used as scapegoats for more repression. We can also have a positive effect by providing hope and support for internal dissident forces. Read Anatoly Sharansky's memoir of his experience in the Russian gulag for just how important the West's firm stand was to the prisoners. There are always trade-offs, but we are usually better off applying pressure to regimes we find offensive rather than giving them our support. Nations should have to work for Uncle Sam's favors, not hold their people hostage to ensure it.

4) I understand the problems of "democracy" without "rule of law" and other supporting institutions. That's all getting set up bit by bit in Iraq, with many of the public sector salaries coming from us! Will it work? That's the big question, but one of the things that makes the Iraq effort so monumental is the number of institutions and factors we are trying to set up all at once.

Is democracy always the answer? Who knows. It works quite well, in one form or another, once it's established, and yes, as a value I view the openness of a democratic society as a positive good.

Must we hammer our way through the world setting up paper-thin democracies will-nilly by force of arms? Of course not! Nor, as far as I am aware, is anyone suggesting that. We should, however, hold out the hand of support to those who wish to establish it for themselves, and it should be a goal of our rebuilding effort when it comes time to rebuild a destroyed enemy as far as is practicable.

How many Iraqs can we do at one time? I say one. That's why I say that states like Syria or Iran who do risk an American strike do so at even greater peril, because we're not going to have the desire or the resources to dedicate to rebuilding them as we are rebuilding Iraq if it comes to armed conflict.

In sum, one of the reasons democracy, or any sort of moderate government, whatever the form, fails in that region is bad neighborly influence. That is what the reconstruction of Iraq is hoping to counter. We have removed one of the region's great demagogues, who made hatred of the West and America a virtue. We made him a loser. If our efforts are successful, it will make home-grown regional freedom movements all the more possible. That's why it's so important we not give up.

Definitely, Americans shouldn't give up now as they did it once already to Iraq - it made the things worse, as you can recall - instead of getting friends amongst Iraqis America just traded them to Saddam. It seems now to many people that the coalition forces just want to escape from disturbing and now unpopular Iraq as fast as possible and call it a "handover of power". As for British, they traded jews in Transjordan before WW2 to arabs after discovering a lot of problems with their Balfour declaration implementation. No wonder they would love to even accept vetos from new Iraqis on any military operation. If the new Iraqi government happens to be pro-Shiit's, then UK forces would readily submit to their veto whenever shiits decide to oppress sunnis or kurds and prefer the UK forces not to interfere - quite likely scenario.
As for Sharansky's memoirs (I should have read them) and gulag... Being Russian myself, I would say that not much people feel grateful to USA for their support of human rights during the cold war - sadly, we forgot western efforts ("Golos Ameriki" etc.). There is a number of reasons - probably would be an interesting topic to elaborate on. The fact is, many Russians dislike Americans now. Americans did a shameful things to Macedonia and Ugoslavia - one reason, Americans are scapegoats when talking about Soviet Union desintegration, about economical problems (trade restrictions and agricultural subsidies). People hate Bill Gates, Hollywood, political correctness, "russian mafia" topic, humiliating visa procedures and many many other things. And almost all Russians don't support Iraq war. So, "democracy" is becoming a swear-word, because is accociated more and more with American influence. I am sure something similar is hapenning in other countries all over the world. Iran is not an exception.