When Bush talks about democracy what does he really mean?

Lets have compare two recent comments made by President Bush, one is about Iraq (and the War On Terror in general) and the other is about Venezuela.


In a speech to the West Point graduating class of 2006:

“This is only the beginning. The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people, in every nation.” Reiterating his and Cheney’s theme that the U.S. is now engaged in “endless war,” Bush told the young cadets: “The war began on my watch, but its going to end on your watch.”

And on the issue of the rise of populism in Bolivia and Venezuela:

“Let me just put it bluntly - I'm concerned about the erosion of democracy in the countries you mentioned,” Bush said in response to a question put to him about Venezuela and Bolivia. “I am going to continue to remind our hemisphere that respect for property rights and human rights is essential for all countries,” he added.

Does anyone see a disparity here? Bush calls for the spread of liberty and democracy throught every country in the world, while at the same time denouncing what any sane person would agree is, a very democratic movement going on in Latin America. I think this is chilling, because it shows that Bush isn't really interested in democracy and liberty, rather he's interested in property rights. In other words, whenever Bush talks about liberty and democracy, he really means corporate freedom. Perhaps Bush is concerned about the erosion of human rights in Venezuela... but certainly not for the human rights of the average venezeulan who now has near 100% literacy and public schooling and health care. It must be the small, rich, de-nationalised ogliarchy (which lost power in that country but still own the national media which regulary calls for Chavez's assassination) that Bush is concerned about!

Does anyone find it scary that, given Bush's perverse definition of democracy, He plans to spread that democracy to other countries beyond Iraq?




[edit on 3-6-2006 by metallicabrainz]

yep i understand what youre saying, when he says democracy he is projecting what he and others in his group want, might not mean what we think it means.

good thread idea

Well, promoting democracy is a sham anyway.

No one seems to understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Face it, Bush is, at heart, a federalist. Both Republican and Democratic Parties, when either come to the US government's powers over the union, are federalists to the core.

There is a pressing need to resurrect the Anti-Federalist Party.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, promoting democracy is a sham anyway.

No one seems to understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Democracy is an idea. Republic is a nation-state concept, at least on treaty or treaties agreed and signed by individual representatives of states or provinces in order to form a sovereign union. To promote democracy is a way of encouraging individual or collective representatives to participate on a cause greater than themselves for the greater good of a more civilized society while maintaining their autonomous affairs.

That's why I favor state republicanism over true democracy. We can be a part of the whole civilized union as agreed by all parties but retain our local/state affairs respectively for the people living in each state/province.

People need to recognize that democracy is just a political IDEA that we can apply practically on a day-to-day affairs, not a government-endorsed entity empowered by the manipulated people at the whims of the powerful and the wealthy.

Unfortunately people are wrongly indoctrinated and taught about democracy from public school systems and liberal colleges.

Sad to say, Metallicabrainz, but this idea of using "democracy" to pump up the voters is nothing new. Ronald Reagan's campaigned bragged about using the "illusion" of democracy.
I have always loved the prescience of the 1976 movie Network. When everyone was talking about the character screaming he's mad as hell, there was a quieter, equally important scene where the character is being explained how things really are
" There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."Let us update the list with Halliburton, Bechtel, etal. Trade over patriotism.
Nixon did not "open" up China, Shell Oil did.
In the 1950's "Yankee go home" was scrawled on walls of Latin America. Today, ied's explode in Iraq. Don't worry, Metallicabrainz, we'll export the best government money can buy.


"...its going to end on your watch.”--these soldiers will have 20+ years in the military. That must be the projection of how long we'll be over there. When he said pre-war we'ld be over there long enough to get the job done and not one day more, that "one day more" is decades, not months in the future.


[edit on 3-6-2006 by desert]

When Bush mentions liberty, freedom and property rights in one sentence, he is talking about Plutocracy, not Democracy.

So true, HardToGet. Wake up citizens from your dreaming and pay attention to reality! Don't be decieved by wedge issues in elections (notice the marriage amendment is being brought up again--please, elected leaders, don't embarrass this great nation again in the eyes of the world).

Hadn't heard of the word plutocracy before... sums up Bush's real interpretation of democracy quite nicely i think. Another look at this quote:

“This is only the beginning. The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom, and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people, in every nation.”

So does anyone else think this is essentially a declaration of war AGAINST democracy throughout the world? If you don't question the meaning of words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' to Bush, then the above seems like some kind of noble mission... which i'm sure how they want us to see it. However i think it's obvious that Bush is simply declaring that the US is going to invade other countries soon, and install US puppet regimes. Which countries? Syria and Iran anyone? And we are supposed to believe that this 'endless war against terrorism' will somehow reduce terrorism?

Of course the genius of using 'terrorism' as the reason/excuse/propaganda for this enless war is that, with every passing day, more and more people become 'terrorists' because they want revenge. This is a self fullfilling prophecy. Invade a country in the name of fighting terrorism, kill lots of mothers, children etc... then when people fight back, that violence gives the 'terrorism threat' credence.

Does anyone actually think we should stop calling it the 'War On Terror'? We all seem to be using this propaganda phrase whenever we refer to whats going on. Well, don't you think that just by saying the phrase gives the phrase a kind of credence? It's like repeating a lie over and over again until it becomes truth.

Shouldn't we be calling it the 'War On Democracy' or perhaps the 'War For Plutocracy'?

If Bush and Co. are always inverting the meaning of words, to hide their real ambissions... then why can't we invert their words to expose their ambissions?

[edit on 4-6-2006 by metallicabrainz]

Originally posted by HardToGet
When Bush mentions liberty, freedom and property rights in one sentence, he is talking about Plutocracy, not Democracy.

Then the founding fathers of the USA were plutocrats as well! They all espoused the very same things! Wow!