Does it include all countries?

One of the things that I learned, even about myself, when sitting before a marriage counselor in the early days of my marriage was that men typically say things, like "I'm sorry," before what they feel actually, emotionally, backs up what they just said.
I kind of understood that theory when it was explained to me, but later in my life I have actually experienced what it is like. I have to say I'm sorry whether I feel it or not. Later I realize what an idiot I've been, but I won't as long as the argument is continuing (and if I don't say I'm sorry for something the argument will continue). The same goes for I love you, and a whole host of other sentiments. For guys emotion is very much a decision to make, not an something you feel at that moment.
I wonder how that plays in politics sometimes. I have noticed that, despite the past actions of a politician, that when he starts talking about a particular philosophy in public, that his actions kind of follow that trend, whether that's where they started or not.
Take Clinton for instance. I was often amazed by how moderate he sounded in his speeches, and how much some of his rhetoric on programs almost sounded conservative. Later he would prove to move his administration pretty far to the right compared to the early days of his administration.
Bush has been like that too. You can't say that he has not made great strides in following an agenda that was set in his campaign speeches. One area in particular has struck me lately as a great example of this phenomena.
Back in the 1980s, Reagan had this habit (as did Carter and others) of supporting bad regimes in the fight against the USSR. Afghanistan is one example. But something happened in the 2nd term that kind of shifted that policy. Reagan began to talk freedom and democracy. His speeches began to look something similar to what Bush has been repeating over the last 3 years. The problem was that Reagan's track record to that point had not been great. But that changed. Say whatever you will about his methods, he sent the Philippines down that road by forcing the Marcos dictatorship out. Reagan was trying to support Democratic revolutions in central and south America (somewhat badly when that revolution was militant and brutal itself). The point is though that Reagan became more of a champion of democracy because of his own rhetoric.
Now GW is on that path. Lest anyone think that the only reason we invaded Iraq instead of, say, Togo, is that Iraq has lots of oil, see events in recent days as a partial refute.
There were some making the point that Togo was regressing, because the military took over and appointed the son of the just deceased leader as President. Calls came out for Bush to do something, or say something, because if he didn't it would prove the critics right.
Well, this weekend the Bush administration has announced that it will cut off military assistance to the country and endorse the sanctions imposed on it from the regional ECOWAS. How's that for an answer.
The Bush administration has reacted favorably to the Ukrainian elections and the Georgian elections. In addition, he finally has talked tough to Putin, showing a hardening of his attitude toward the crumbling democracy in Russia.

We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power and the rule of law - and the United States and all European countries should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia.

In doing this, Mr. Bush has refuted my rather snarky comment regarding his past statements where Mr. Putin is concerned. Good show, Mr. President. (Hat tip to Oxblog)
I must say that based on my little story at the start of this post, that I expect that Bush will indeed be a champion of democracy during his second term.