It was easy to miss amid all the theatrics of President Bush posing in Saudi Arabia with a sword and Secretary of State Rice dashing off for a surprise visit to Iraq. And especially so given how the attention of the press and the public is already moving on to the next president. But in his own way, in this visit to the Middle East, Mr. Bush is pressing the freedom agenda in a way no less revolutionary than the visits by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to Berlin during the last great global struggle, the Cold War.

Mr. Bush was asked about the comparison yesterday by a reporter traveling with him who likened the fence that Israel has built to protect itself from the terrorists to the wall that the Soviet Union built to keep the people of East Berlin locked behind the Iron Curtain. Mr. Bush rejected the comparison. He had just finished issuing calls for increased freedom in the Arab and Muslim world that were all the more startling, in comparison to his predecessor presidents’ calls for freeing the captive nations, because Mr. Bush was making his remarks on unfree soil, or, as Mr. Bush put it in his speech in Abu Dhabi, “on Arab soil.”

Whence rebuked the opponents of liberty. “You cannot build trust when you hold an election where opposition candidates find themselves harassed or in prison,” Mr. Bush said, in a comment clearly aimed at Egypt. And, moving on to language that seemed aimed at Saudi Arabia, he said, “You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government. And you cannot stand up a modern and confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms.”

“A society based on liberty is worth the sacrifice,” Mr. Bush said. “We know that democracy is the only form of government that treats individuals with the dignity and equality that is their right. We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability. In a democracy, leaders depend on their people — and most people do not want war and bloodshed and violence. Most people want lives of peace and opportunity. So it is the declared policy of the United States to support these peoples as they claim their freedom — as a matter of natural right and national interest.”

We have our differences with Mr. Bush on the details. We don’t share his confidence, for example, that the longtime aide to Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, is, as Mr. Bush put it, “committed to peace and reconciliation.” We differ with Mr. Bush’s description of the founder of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed, as “revered” — Harvard refunded a $2.5 million donation from the sheik after a student there, Rachel Fish, documented the anti-Americanism, Holocaust denial, and anti-Semitism spread by the donor.

We differ with the prescription by Mr. Bush earlier in his Middle East trip that “The point of departure for permanent status negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs “should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.” The point of departure should be the Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and an end to terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel’s city of Sderot. It’s not constructive to describe the disputed territory as “occupied,” any more than it is to describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “occupied.”

But Mr. Bush has more than earned his standing as a tactician, for on the broad strokes he sketches an inspiring vision, one that, if realized, would result not only in a safer America and Israel, but in a Middle East where liberty, freedom, and democracy now scarce, are secured. Mr. Bush acknowledged he faces many skeptics, not only in the Middle East but even in America. He displayed, nonetheless, the confidence and faith that is his deepest strength. He said, “In this fight, our nations have a weapon more powerful than bombs or bullets. It is the desire for freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God — and no terrorist or tyrant can take that away.”