(Part two of three)

Here's how the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines freedom:

Freedom: 1. The condition of being free or unrestricted 2. Personal or civic liberty; absence of slave status 3. The power of self-determination, independence of fate 4. The state of being free to act (often foll. by to + infin.: we have the freedom to leave) 5. Frankness, outspokenness, undue familiarity 6. (foll. by from) the condition of being exempt from nor not subject to (a defect, burden, etc.) 7. (foll. by of) a a full or honorary participation in (membership, privileges, etc) b unrestricted use of (facilities, etc.) 8 a privilege possessed by a city or corporation 9 facility or ease in action 10 Boldness of conception - the four freedoms: freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from fear and want. Freedom fighter a person who takes part in violent resistance to an established political system, etc.

When Dubya kept ringing the rhetorical freedom bell on Thursday, what did he mean?

You can see the full inauguration speech here (even watch the video!), but allow me to highlight a few key parts:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

If true, great! But it would unquestionably be a historic departure from traditional U.S. practices.

The U.S. -- like other super-powers, to be fair -- has been most interested in preserving and expanding its sphere of influence, both by encouraging the establishment of governments friendly to its interests and undermining those perceived to be hostile (see Iran, Guatemala, Chile, etc., etc).

Whether or not governments friendly to U.S. interests were democratically elected or humane to their own citizens was pretty much a non-consideration.

When Bush said America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling ..., Stewart added: anymore. :)

But I also think the underlying message is: You are free to be subservient to the U.S.'s national interests.

Bush also said: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Stewart: Offer not valid in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and all of Africa. :) 

Condoleezza Rice identified some "outposts of tyranny" in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. For the record, they are Cuba, Belarus, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea (here is a BBC summary of response by some of the outposts' media outlets).

How did Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan manage to stay off the list, to name but two? The U.S. has a military base in Uzbekistan, which is a very authoritarian government. Turkmenistan is run by a crazy guy -- who rules over a land with huge reserves of oil and gas.

A Globe and Mail editorial on Friday said "the skeptics have a point." For example, it says the Greater Middle East Initiative has been regarded with derision by some of its allies in the region. However, it should be noted the elections in Afghanistan and for the Palestinian Authority appear to have been fairly conducted.

However, Pervez Musharraf became president of Pakistan through a military coup -- which doesn't stop him from being a best bud of the U.S. You don't hear much denunciation of China's repressiveness; there's money to be made there.

The BBC has rounded up more world press reaction here and some reaction from various nations.

In terms of the use of force in advancing this agenda of freedom , Bush said: ... It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. ...

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm. ...

Did he mean Iraq by that? Hard to say: The biggest issue of his presidency except for 9/11 and it's never mentioned.

But in an interview published Jan. 16 in the Washington Post, Bush felt the election outcome supported his decisions there:

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

When I look back on the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, to my mind, there was never any doubt the situation would end without an invasion.

It's hard to see the Iran situation resolving itself easily without Iran's total capitulation to U.S. will -- the only outcome acceptable to the neocons running the show.

Here's an excerpt from an NYT story on VP Dick Cheney:

In an interview on the MSNBC program "Imus in the Morning," a highly unusual forum for Mr. Cheney, he appeared to use the danger of Israeli military action as one more reason that the Iranians should reach a diplomatic agreement to disarm, noting dryly that any such strike would leave "a diplomatic mess afterwards" and should be avoided.

Cheney also said: "We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically."

But then the U.S. conducts things in a way that makes a diplomatically-resolved outcome highly unlikely.

Now, the question is why?

NEXT: The end of suburbia