I think once again you underestimate GWB with "Democracy", as we all know the real objective is liberty, democracy simply is more likely to produce liberty than say, autocracy. Bush knows this, as has stressed "freedom" as much as he has "democracy", "democracy" has in the modern usage been used to quickly connote the concept representative government and self-determination.
I don't think Bush in a speech on the big picture wants to get in to the minutia of the political philosophy on the difference between a pure democracy and a democratic republic.
Until recently America's greatest military advantages were the Atlantic and the Pacific. In today's world there is no security when primitives can project force across the oceans. They cannot prevail, but they can do us harm and influence our behavior. In this context, the only way to avoid the foreign influence that Washington detested is to destroy them on their turf and reform the anti-liberty oligarchies that pay protection money and give them their flimsy rationale for brutality.
Washington's fear was that foreign entanglements would inevitable have a negative influence in our newly won independence and liberty. The War of 1812 and the Bank of England currency struggle proved that Washington's fears were well founded.
Today, I believe that Washington would choose to preserve American liberty by extending liberty to the world, rather than shrinking inward and accepting the slow, steady and inevitable erosion of our values. We have already accepted limits on our freedom in the wake of 9-11. What will we have to give up next?
Sometimes we must stand alone (or nearly alone) to resist the forces of savagery, the threat of fanatacism, the expedience of Euro Socialism or any other foreign influence that threatens OUR freedom.
So be it.
As the debate demonstrates, President Bush uses the term "freedom," in at least six different senses, some completely contradictory to others. For example, he adopts FDR's "Four Freedoms" approach, which is tantamount to accepting the Socialist value system. He also calls for moving America towards "equality." I do not know if the President really thought about what he was saying or how deeply. But he trusted either a pathetically confused speech writer, or one with very very dangerous, as well as confused concepts.
On the other hand, Washington's approach remains ideal for virtually every international situation. Why not just embrace it? It works perfectly fine with modern technology.