The author does not quite understand this speech, it is clear. The West Point speech was not about "preemption doctrine". Instead, it outlineded President Bush's "Liberty Doctrine", in which, if necessary, preemption will be used.
I was pretty surprised that he later made a point of noting:
And he spoke about liberty. The spread of liberty throughout the world, the president suggested, should be a foreign-policy priority of the United States: "American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty."
He almost gets it, but not quite, yet. This WAS the point of the West Point speech, and is the guiding light of our President's actions. I hope the author goes back and re-reads it.
Not that the media will ever bring this out, but among those who developed and promulgated the "preemption" doctrine, it has always been tied to the doctrine of Liberty.
Wolfowitz has been warning against the false "stability" provided by authoritarian regimes for over a quarter century now. He was among the very first to warn about the threat posed by Sodamn Insane (as long ago as 1978, IIRC). He was also one of the first to advocate the abandonment of the Marcos regime. Similar figures, like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams, have also been at the forefront in advancing liberty. Kirkpatrick alerted Reagan to the centrist element in El Salvador, leading to it's democratization. Abrams argued for the removal of Manuel Noriega years before Bush I finally went ahead with it.
I could go on for paragraphs with such examples. But for the left, the media, and even much of the "centrist" establishment, the greatest and most effective advocates and defenders of liberty will always be "war mongers" and "simplistic" "cowboys."