I was discussing freedom the other night and we were talking about the definition of freedom in the mind of Bush (or rather the speechwriters of the administration). Is the talk of championing ‘freedom’ hypocritical for a regime that supports the holding without trial of many individuals in Cuba and other places? Or do they define the ideas of freedom differently? Is it do what we say not do what we do? Or is the Bush admin the abettors of freedom, deciding who should get freedom and who shouldn’t? Is it the same with freedom from tyranny does a regimes usefulness or the gains gained dictate if the tyrannised should be released or not? Also aren’t all freedoms relative and subjective? Is it just to much of an abstract idea to be given as the basis of a policy?