Now that you have read what Kincaid says, can you find something that is wrong in his logic or something that is untrue?
Of course, there will be rebukes such as:"But Bush sent the military to fight Al-Qaeda". Yes, sent them completely ideologically unprepared for that fight by not identifying the enemy properly, replacing global jihad with some "war on terror" in order not to upset his friends in Saudi Arabia. As a result the US military is almost as ignorant about the nature of the conflict as he is and has lead to the situation where, as Kincaid says:
...American soldiers, many of them Christians, are giving their lives and limbs to prop up a Muslim government that encourages or tolerates religious persecution against Christians.
Another favourite soundbite of hard-core Bush partisans is that "Bush had a noble idea with promoting democracy". To that I reply: even if this is true, so what? Hell, paved, good intentions...These words ring any bells? The enfatuation of Bush and those that influence him with this democratization delusion has brought up an islamic client-state of Iran without the latter having to fire a single shot. Not to mention that the case for a fight against global jihad has been seriously weakened by Bush's insertion of his own agenda inside it and the failure thereof.
The obvious question posing itself now is: why does Bush persist in this policy? He simply has to. Reversing the trend would mean giving up on something he has been trying to sell to the public since the preparation for the Iraq war, it would mean the realization that not all people desire freedom and democracy and that they are not the universal solutions to all the world's problems. These are ideas that many in Washington built their entire careers on and they must not see them fail even at the price of putting an entire civilization in serious jeopardy.