Certainly, Bush is absolutely correct that the military junta in Myanmar is repressive, but I suspect his pointed criticism of that country has a lot more to do with China's cozy relationship with the military dictatorship than with his actual concern for the country or its people. After all, he chose as his vice president a man who voted against a resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison and worked to continue close relationships with the Apartheid government in South Africa...I mean, freedom and liberation aren't exactly tops on the puppetmaster's agenda.
So I imagine it strikes people as a bit daft when Mr. Let's-start-a-war-on-false-pretenses gets up in front of diplomats and starts talking about freedom.
Meanwhile, in the same city, the Iranian president was yukking it up at Columbia with such zingers as claiming Iran has no homosexuals:
Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad replied: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."
Reacting to laughter and jeers from the audience he added: "In Iran we don't have this phenomenon, I don't know who you told this." [BBC]
Of course, it's easy to have fun at Ahmadinejad's expense, because he's as utterly ridiculous making his pronouncements about Iranian freedoms as Bush is making his about liberation. But seriously, no homosexuals? Let's take him at his word for a moment. It's quite possible he's an avid student of Michel Foucault and he realizes, via The History of Sexuality, that homosexuality as an identity is something the culture only begins to recognize as we move into the twentieth century, that prior to that it was a behavior (e.g. sodomy) that was criminalized and hence it was a criminal act, like robbery. Hence poor Oscar Wilde being sent to Reading Gaol for "gross indecency."
However, in Ahmadinejad's case, I really don't think he knows that history. I would argue, though, that the end result is the same: he truly believes that Iran has no homosexuals because he doesn't believe in homosexuality (in the same sense that rabid right-wing Christians don't believe in homosexuality as identity): he understands the physical manifestations of homosexuality (i.e. same-sex sexual activity) as criminal actions outside one's identity, much like stealing a loaf of bread or assaulting someone are criminal acts that don't give the perpetrator any sort of identity claim.
In other words, he's way way way behind the times, but quite earnest in his ignorance, even as Bush is earnest in his.