And what you're seeing now is an historic moment, because I believe democracies will spread. I believe when people get the taste for freedom or see a neighbor with a taste for freedom, they will demand the same thing, because I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe everybody has the desire to be free. I recognize some don't believe that, which basically condemns some to tyranny. I strongly believe that deep in everybody's soul is the desire to live in liberty, and if given a chance, they will choose that path. And it's not easy to do that. The other day, I gave a speech and talked about how our road to our Constitution, which got amended shortly after it was approved, was pretty bumpy. We tried the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. There was a lot of, kind of, civil unrest. But, nevertheless, deep in the soul is the desire to live in liberty, people -- make the -- have got the patience and the steadfastness to achieve that objective. And that is what we're seeing in Iraq.Now Correct me if I am wrong, but hoping and believing that democracies will spread to Iraq's neigbors is a bit fanciful a notion. Most freedom is fought for and paid for in blood spilled. It's expensive and does not seep across national boundaries. So, why does W continue this line of argument to justify his little capitalistic endeavor to fatten his buddies wallets? This notion of "spreading freedom" is really out of joint with the realities of hard fought democracy.
Monday, December 19, 2005
When was the last case of freedom spreading by osmosis?