The American media, for all its proclaimed freedom of expression, is more deferential to the government, than media in many other countries: countries which don't champion themselves "guardians of democarcy", but still give the press a greater amount of freedom than does the United States.
By no account is Dubya the greatest public speaker. But he left me thinking when he defended the war effort in Iraq some time ago. Refering to the difference in cultures, he said, "Its condescending to think that one fifths of the world doesn't believe in freedom and liberty". Now where did he get that from...?
I do believe that the President is driven to war ultimately by his idealism, and not by greed. But it is this very Conservative idealism that is flawed. Of course, it doesn't help that the hawks who `advise' him are not entirely guided by lofty motives such as freedom, liberty. Noam Chomsky writes that American foreign policy is inherently designed to dominate other nations, subdue opposition and exploit resources for selfish interests. Of course, this is partly true with any nation's foreign policy: self-betterment. But usually, it is acheived by more subtle means than the ones America has historically adopted.
Conservatives have been dreaming of a New World Order where America reigns supreme for quite some time now. The excellent newsmagazine Frontline reports that right wing think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sent an audacious letter to Clinton. "No longer should the U.S. contain the Saddam Hussein regime.... if Saddam does acquire the capacity to deliver WMD, [among other things,] a significant portion of the world's oil supply will be put at hazard". Others like the RAND corporation were instrumental in getting the government to pump money into advanced research and development, mainly for weapons. The focus for most of these think tanks is to establish pax Americana, albeit with American military pre-eminence.