I was reading a talk this evening by President Hinckley and was struck by the familiarity of a theme he brought up in 2003 with the inaugural speech Bush gave today. I found the talk when I was looking for more information about Alma 43, which indicates some narrow reasons why engaging in war may be justified.

"Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy."

- President Hinckley, "War and Peace", May 2003 Ensign Magazine

"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."

- President Bush, Second Inaugural Address, Jan. 20 2004

I am not trying to imply that the two leaders are in harmony on all issues, just that there is an interesting connection in this single principle expressed by both. I have been trying to decide in my own mind if we are obligated to help other countries who do not have democracy as Bush has suggested.

There may be a nuance here though. Maybe there is a difference in defending existing liberty from bringing liberty to places where it does not exist at all. But maybe this nuance is meaningless -- it seems unfair to defend liberty only for those who already have it. This would be akin to refusing to rescue someone drowning unless their head was above water. So, the big question is how do you turn this principle into action?

There is a good discussion about this tonight on the PBS Newshour show.