Whatever happened to the Sharansky-Bush doctrine?

The Sharansky-Bush doctrine??

Let me explain. In late fall 2004 I was reading on National Review Online how George W Bush, recently re-elected, was reading a book called The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky. My wife alertly ordered the book for me as a Christmas gift, and we both enjoyed it. It was an eloquent appeal to stand up for human rights around the world, to no longer ignore the abuses of dictatorships in the name of "diplomacy" or "stability".
Then in January 2005 George W Bush made the principles in the book the theme of his second inaugural address.

"We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

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. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This resounded in my heart because this was what was missing all those years in our relationships with the Soviet Union, we never fully acknowledged the evil that was happening because we wanted to be at peace.

In our world now, the Soviet Union is gone but tyranny still exists.

Another quote from Bush's second inaugural:
"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."

But what does this mean? Are we obligated to invade other countries to keep this doctrine? We ended one tyrant's rule in Iraq, should we invade Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Zimbabwe? No I don't think so. I think the promise above commits us to noticing what goes on in other countries, to lobbying for freedom and to try to remember those who are imprisoned. Maybe there ought to be a US government website that tells the stories of people around the world who are in prison or oppressed by their governments.

As George W Bush's term nears its end, it seems like the vision he laid out in the second inaugural hasn't been implemented much at all (since the invasion of Iraq had already happened).