"The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States -- with our allies and friends -- to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation. Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable. But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous." Sigh. More righteous BS designed to inspire "patriotism," nationalism, and create justifications for the U.S. government's continued world domination. Ask yourself: Who really is the Rogue Nation here? Looking at their bullet points about what constitutes a "Rogue Nation" we have:
- brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
Well, I suppose the first part of this statement doesn't apply for the most part, but you could probably argue that the latter applies to the U.S. Regardless, this is probably a minor point. - display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; Ah, yes, this definitely sounds like the U.S. with the exception of threatening their neighbors. Mexico and Canada have been well in hand for over a century now so there really hasn't been a need. However, the U.S. seems ready to operate unilaterally, with no regard for treaties or international law at the drop of the hat. Certainly the U.S. categorically rejected the International Criminal Court. Also, numerous U.N. resolutions, particularly those involving Israel and Palestine. See here for additional information: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html - are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
In other words, anyone with a threat to the U.S.'s already established weapons of mass destruction and other advanced technology that have been used to aggressively maintain U.S. interests around the globe. - sponsor terrorism around the globe; and The U.S. ran the "School of Americas" for 30+ years that trained the bulk of the killers, terrorists, and "counter-insurgents" of the various Central and Southern American repressive regimes. This is rigorously documented elsewhere and beyond a doubt. So, basically, it's OK to sponsor terrorism if it's helpful to the U.S. (e.g. you are the CIA and you arm and train Osama bin Laden to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan), but if it's not helpful to U.S. interests then it's bad. - reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands. First part: Do I have to enumerate the countless U.N. (and other organizations) stances that have been opposed by the U.S.? Including treaties against the use of land mines, Israeli actions in Palestine, and countless other foreign policy stances that basically deny other countries and their people the same basic human values and rights guaranteed to Americans? Considering this is it so strange the U.S. (well, the government really) is "hated" or that "for which it stands" looks completely different when you are not a U.S. citizen and instead are one of the groups of people trampled upon by U.S. foreign policy? The saddest part about this whole stance is the ignorance of the average American citizen, their refusal to educate themselves, their dependence on the mass media to provide them with "unbiased" information, and their blindness to the new "boogeyman." The "Red Terror," "Communism," and "The Evil Empire" have clearly been replaced by "Terrorism" and the "Axis of Evil." Same story, different bad guys, same end results. Inability to see the commonality between the behavior of those ruling the world now and those who ruled the world in the past (and the injustices in both of those periods) is just plain denial. Bush's new manifesto | 
