DF says: "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend."
This sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense, the war in Irak indeed has its justification as a part of a broader attempt to get rid of terror. Unfortunately, US policy seems to follow different principles with respect to Israel, at least in the eyes of many Arabs. Wouldn't it make even more sense to support moderate palestinians (and their more legitimate claims) more effectively and take a tough stance against "terrorists", in the same way that moderate Iraqis should be supported against the more violent elements currently active in Iraq?
You also say: "America will have to take this road without [...] Europe's Socialists from both the Left and the Right [...]."
I would just like to add that many Europeans are at odds with the means the US is using to achieve its policy objectives, but these people may nevertheless fully agree with the underlying objective. The relevant question is the following: is the current US policy effective in achieving its objectives? I believe it is perfectly laudable to favour regimes in the middle east that are respectful of their citizens. But disagreement on how to achieve this goal should not lead to consider some entire countries as enemies almost as ugly as the Soviet Union or nazi Germany were. The differences are technical, not ideological (on this point).
Of course this reasoning does not apply to everyone in Europe (or elswhere). Regarding the French Presidency, the critique of using force from the mouth of someone who does not hesitate to send troops into areas with less media coverage (i.e. Africa) in order to "protect" its citizens leaves at least a bizarre impression.