President Obama first says we shouldn't be the world's policeman:
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions.
So being a policeman--enforcing the laws--isn't what we should do. Got it. Please go on.
Except that when we enforced the world's laws--that is, acted as the world's policeman--things were better:
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
So, leading from the front has been a good thing? Even if it has been a burden for us?
I'm so confused! Is it good or bad for America to enforce international agreements?
I should check the film. Will I see different ties or shirt colors in these different parts of the speech--or maybe different shadows from sunlight entering a window--indicating that the White House spliced together pieces filmed at different times and forgot to make sure the whole thing fit together?
Stupid me. I went and read the speech even after I listened and couldn't believe my ears. I had to go check to see if I really heard that rather major contradiction. I did.
This should be embarrassing for whoever wrote this word vomit.
