Issue:OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan on President Bush's speech:

Sepcific: "'We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.' 'Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.' '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 the world.'
Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."

Comment: A conservative is concerned about the President's comments. I've bolded a part that particularly troubles me. Logic tells me that American system and Liberty is based on the ability to vote and speak. So as long as there is a group that governs itself by allowing all to vote and speak, then liberty will survive. It is not dependent on external forces. Liberty is dependent on the "will of the people" - only.

This President just doesn't get it. He has great intentions, but he has missed the lesson that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A concern is that his arrogance is going to draw non-terrorist fire. Because I am lost as to why this President's attitude about "freedom's march" is different that the spread of communism? We fought the cold war because a country with a different idea of governance was forcing that idea of other countries. Vietnam was fought to stop the domino effect.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something. I want to understand.