Earth to Bush,Democracy is not Liberty:

To stay the course? Why to create a democracy in America's image? How about to defend and protect liberty abroad? The president continues to fumble when it comes to defineing what the distiction is between democracy and liberty. Or maybe he believe's in the idea of democracy first, and liberty second? But liberty cant' come in second since deomcracy is a product of liberty.There has been no debate by the talking heads about liberty, it's all been about whether we should bring democracy to a region that is still to unstable, for the instituions of democracy. Sure the Iraqis' have a constitution, but that's still no guarentee that the counrty won't suddenly burst into civil war, or that we'll have a smouldering low grade type of civil war going on. Thus the need for American troops on the ground. To sustain democracy first and liberty second. Wrong move. We should be argueing for defence of liberty first, then democracy second. It's this misguided thinking that continues to get America into trouble abroad. The idea that we as Americans' have to spread democracy abroad in hope that it sawns peace, is flawed when it is liberty that creates peace and prosperity. But I question the idea that Americans support the notion of spreading and defending liberty around the world when others see no value in it. If we as a nation are led to war, in another country to defend and protect liberty, would we as a nation support our leaders who believe it is our obligation as being Americans, beacuse our past history, and role in the defense, and pursuit there of, for liberty? I don't believe the time has come nor a case made strong enough, that we as a Americans must sacrifice ourselves for the idea of liberty, in another country. American's are selfish, the nation does not see it being in our best interest to pursue the goal of liberty in a place like Iraq. The president has lost support because his arguements for war in Iraq do not impart a sence of importance to the idea as to why we have to pay with American blood for liberty in a place like Iraq. American foreign policy should be based on the interest of America spreading the idea of liberty across the globe, and not as President mistakeinly points out to promote democracy abroad. Let me take take Venezuela as an example. Look at Venezuela, see how they have a tyrant as president now. A democraticly elected tyrant mind you. The country is going down hill because of the actions of one man, Chavez. What do you think ought to be our interest there? Oil? Democracy? Liberty? We as a people should desire to see all people across the globe to be free and have the right to pursue liberty. Thus the situation in Venezuela bears watching, should government dprive the people of their freedom, then we ought to open discussions with Chavez to allow for more freedom. But it is not in Amreicas' interest to alineate a people, so as to islolate, and punish a tyrant. A tyrant might be useful if he can guarentee peace and security, while allowing for the pursuit of liberty. Such a tyrant in the middle ages was considered noble, even a King, if he maintained soverignty, yet allowed for the freedom of his people. In the case of Venezuela it is not in America's interest to isolate a nation through sanctions, but to maintain the status quo in hopes of one day of allowing a people to decide their own fate. We can as Americans can encourage this, but nothing more. The reason why the Bush presidency ought to be considered a failure is because the president chose war instead of diplomacy. But this is a sign of a leader being an incompantant in, the use of diplomacy, in the pursuit of national interests.