So, my theory:
To be a full believer in democracy, you must also be a socialist or communist. Nothing else makes sense. If the will of the people is the most appropriate thing to govern the people, then the good of the people will always be foremost in policy, above the rights of the individual. (The individual has very little power under democracy.) Therefore individual freedom cannot be a cornerstone of democracy.
To be a full believer in capitalism, you must also be either an anarchist or a supporter of aristocracy (rulership by the elite). True capitalism must either be backed by no government or by the government of the persons owning the most capital. The good of the masses cannot be considered except by dollar value. The smart businessman may be charitable, but is not required to be by the government that either does not exist or is owned by him.
To be a supporter of what the United States is doing right now in the Persian Gulf, you must be a supporter of imperialism. Granting oneself the right to pound down militarily anything that stirs is the natural conclusion of thinking that might = right and that if a sovereign state does not please us it must be absorbed. The imperialist might also be a capitalist but enforces his might militarily abroad where the aristocrat capitalist might simply enforce it domestically with policy. Also, the more honest imperialist may simply be in favor of old-style feudalism and monarchy.
Therefore, when the imperialists in Washington talk about defending democracy and freedom, they really do have a serious contradiction and need to rethink their rhetoric.