I see it differently.
That phrase can only imply we are headed toward more globalism, less individualism, more wealth transfer, less independence, more tax slavery, less personal responsibility, more U.N. kissassing, less America first.
That is a very, very disturbing sentence in his speech.
Taken out of context, you could interpret it that way.
But remember the man who is saying it, and how he has treated the U.N., giving them short thrift.
Bush puts American interests first because he believes that America's interests are the world's best interests. He does not look at it backwards and consider the world's best interests are America's best interests.
The UN, our political enemies, and the liberals prefer the latter to the former. I believe as the President does, that what is ultimately good for America, is ultimately good for the world. At least, this holds true as long as we are the idealistic and foolish people Americans are likely to be.
I think coconutt has it right. Remember, the President opened his speech with, "At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. "
The theme of the Bush administration has been to encourage independence from government. I think even the Faith Based Initiatives were intended to show what could be done outside of dependence on government organizations, rather than to intrude on non-government organizations with government regulations. The push for private home ownership and independence from the government dole in welfare and (hopefully) social security is definitely not consistent with socialism.
I haven't seen anything that makes me fear that the President is a one-worlder. If he were, he wouldn't have bucked the world court and the UN.
You can take any sentence out of the context of any speech and make it mean what you want it too. That is what the Democrats do and the reason they are out of power....