He didn't win. The argument changed.

Today Charles Krauthammer writes (my emphasis):

A decade ago, [James] Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush's stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated. ... Bush got it right.

No.

The argument is over, but not because Bush "got it right", and certainly not because he won everyone over to his side. Because Thomson and Yamanaka have rendered the question completely moot.

The argument was always predicated on this "Given that embryonic stem cells are the only to do X" - the question being "is X worth it?" Now that predicate isn't true. The question doesn't have to be answered. X may be worth "it" but "it" is no longer the price. The argument exists purely as a philosophical debate now - and in that debate, on those terms, it is by no means clear that Bush's position is "right".

What "vindicated" Bush is not his "moral stance" but the advancements of science.

Which is pretty ironic, when you consider how thoroughly anti-science the man is.