Someone slap this guy. Please. Pretty pretty please???

Bush's United States Military Academy Graduation Speech

actually, it's an extremely well-written speech. very inspiring, poignant, etc. etc. his speech-writers are getting better and better! compare, if you will, this masterpiece of a speech to G. Dubya's vocabulary in the bush-blair debates. hmmm...do i detect a MAJOR DISCREPANCY here??

what bothers me very much about the West Point speech, so much so that I am compelled to rant about it, is it's very well-disguised and very cleverly explained message that it is now acceptable political doctrine for the US to be able to stomp on any nation that even shows a potential for harming "freedom." and who decides what freedom consists of? why, the US, of course!

Some of the more shocking excerpts:

"Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies."

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

"Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge."

"Some nations need military training to fight terror, and we'll provide it."

"We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants." (Applause.)
hmmm...ever consider that these "mad terrorists" are angry at us for a reason?

I wonder how patronizing this sounds to other nations:
"We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world."

"By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it."
and right after, he goes and says:
"Competition between great nations is inevitable, but armed conflict in our world is not. More and more, civilized nations find ourselves on the same side -- united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos."

A nod at hegemonic stability:
"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge -- (applause) -- thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

but, immediately after, a claim at interdependency:
"When the great powers share common values, we are better able to confront serious regional conflicts together, better able to cooperate in preventing the spread of violence or economic chaos."
but wait, the disclaimer:
"America needs partners to preserve the peace, and we will work with every nation that shares this noble goal."

"America cannot impose this vision -- yet we can support and reward governments that make the right choices for their own people."
Sooo.. the contrapositive to that statement would be: "Governments that don't make the right choices can be opposed and punished by America." (I knew all that LSAT logic would come in handy).
Again, who is deciding right from wrong here? I don't buy the universal-moral-imperative line when it so happens that the obliberation of those governments deemed "evil" serve directly to improve our hegemony.