Does President Bush live in a mythical world, or does he merely think that the rest of us live there?

His remarks in the State of the Union address last week about the "Revolution of '89" and America's position "at the center of a widening circle of freedom," imply our country is the guiding hand -- or shining light, or who knows what stirring metaphor -- behind the world's recent democracy movements.

Granted, the overthrow of Panama's government did carry with it a subtle hint of U.S. involvement, but in Eastern Europe and especially China, the White House has assumed a cautious role.

That's not to say that Bush doesn't try, though. Whenever the throngs have stumbled their way toward democracy -- be it through lines of bullet fire or into the path of advancing tanks -- our president, leader of the free world, has been right behind them, providing all of the support that a carefully-worded statement can give.

When the "Revolution of '89" began last May in Tiananmen Square and the Chinese leadership, thumbing its nose at world opinion, silenced the dissent with a ruthless massacre, Bush responded boldly. He announced the U.S. government would "suspend participation in all high-level exchanges of government officials with the People's Republic of China."

The official statement concluded with this proclamation: "The United States has supported the legitimate democratic aspirations for freedom of peoples throughout the world. The United States will continue to voice its concern and its support for these aspirations."

The president re-emphasized this point with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Malta summit. Over heaping bowls of caviar, he fixed Gorby with a steely glare and told him it was America's responsibility to "assist the forces of freedom and reform."

Aspiring revolutionaries have learned, however, that unless they are officially deemed "freedom fighters" by the U.S. administration, "assistance" comes solely in the form of ideological statements with vague and often dubious intent.

At the time of the pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing, America's heroic voice of support, heard through President Bush, said, ". . . this perhaps is a time for caution." Imagine how the students, clustered around their self-made goddess of democracy, must have been stirred by those words.

Three weeks later, while firing squads were reeducating many of the same protestors, Bush secretly sent his national security adviser and deputy secretary of state to Beijing to check in with the regime.

This visit came to light in December after the same delegation went to China again and, in a toast to the Chinese leadership, announced they were there "as friends to resume an important dialogue."

As expected, Bush had a whole litany of rationalizations handy to explain the contradiction between these foreign policy moves and his strong-willed directive of last June. For starters, his statement did not preclude contact with the Chinese government, it simply said, "no exchange."

He also noted that, "We have contact with (other) countries that have egregious records on human rights, so I am going to keep looking for ways to find a common ground."

Undoubtedly, Bush's skillful use of semantics must have heartened those Chinese dissidents who are still facing execution. But even the most optimistic among them may wonder just where this "common ground" could possibly be.

After all, in the past six months, China has passed ordinances outlawing rumor-mongering, boycotts of classes, petitions, meetings or anything else that would "impede the natural order."

It has accused Gorbachev of "subversion of socialism," and has proclaimed that "no matter what may happen in the world, we shall unswervingly follow the socialist road."

Admittedly, Bush's policy of restoring contact has reaped dividends -- criticism of the United States in Chinese newspapers and broadcasts has dropped sharply.

And yet, the State of the Union address resounded with platitudes about "communism crumbling" and "living up to the American ideal."

Just when did this "American ideal" begin to include groveling for friendship from a despotic communist regime? If groveling sounds like too harsh of a term, note that China did insist the United States make the first move toward reconciliation, and it took Bush only three weeks to oblige.

The world we live in is a world where the dissidents in China have become forgotten voices of freedom, where they don't even warrant a mention when the president talks about the important events of 1989. It is not a mythical land where the red, white and blue triumphantly leads reform.

No matter what President Bush believes or expects us to believe, his statements merely pay lip service to democracy. When it comes down to taking action that supports those ideals, American foreign policy leaves freedom movements at the mercy of their oppressors. Obviously in China that leaves them nowhere.