One thing though that they point out was quite wrong for him to say was that "...Obama touted democracy but added 'no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other' — a straw-man argument since that was never U.S. policy."
A recent example would no doubt be Iraq. Why did we force them to re-write their perfectly servicable constitution, especially at a time of war (We weren't even able to get ours out for ten years after we declared our independance)?
Naomi Klein points out on this issue:
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq’s constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.
On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized ; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories ; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".
There are countless other examples (Russia, Chile', Iran etc...), and a good place to look to understand these things would be her excellent book "The Shock Doctrine". I don't expect the writers at The Oklahoman to look into the facts on this issue, but I think people who read this paper should.