First, I would say that Panama constitutes, at least as I see things, an example of overthrowing a 'dictator' and creating (return) a sovreign democracy.
Secondly, I'd say there were many covert activities by the U.S. (and other countries practised similarly) where one person was "helped" out of office to be replaced by a more puppet-like person. Some led to democracies, some didn't.

But most importantly I refer you to the below which was written in 1998 and addressed to President Clinton and signed by:
- Donald Rumsfeld
- Richard Perle
- Paul Wolfowitz
- John Bolton (now U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.?)
- Zalmay Khalilzad (now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq)
- William J Bennett
- William Crystal
... and 11 others
"Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.". At http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm.
Notice the names I listed first and those you named below.
So what we more than likely have is that President Bush was needing something dramatic and fast after the 9/11 attack and those you name dredged this out and in the absence of anything else, was adopted.

Then there are the following excerpts from a 1992 (repeat: 1992) document on "Defence Planning Guidelines" in which it is said Wolfowitz and cohorts had a big hand:
"• The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

• Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.
[According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim ]"to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."
[The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: ]"access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."
[The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.]

• If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.
[There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.
The document states that coalitions] "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," [but it also states the U.S. ]"should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" [formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.
The document states that what is most important is ]"the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.
".

I'd agree that President Bush's "doctrine" is new, but primarily in regard to now having the U.S. run roughshod over whoever it wants, whenever it wants and the peddling of democracy is an afterthought stated to make the whole scheme seem palatable.



>>>>>Based on everything you know, no country has ever overthrown the dictator of a foreign nation and created a soverign democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>True or false?
>>>>
>>>>Ummm, you don't consider [West] Germany a sovereign democracy after the demise of the Third Reich?
>>>
>>>The context of overthrow in this case is an offensive move, not a defensive one. I could have been more clear about that.
>>
>>Would you consider an example where covert [and overt] policies lead to the overthrow of a dictatorship which resulted in the creation of democracy without actually going to war? I guess this could be a collapse instead of an overthrow since there was no "real" war. In this case I am referring to the Reagan years which ultimately lead to the collapse of East Germany, USSR, etc. Now that is taking the offensive.
>
>The Reagan policies are a different point of view than the Bush doctrine:
>
>In the months following September 11th two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the critical policy question of how to handle potentially dangerous countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ("Axis of Evil" states). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as US Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing US foreign policy. These policies, developed during the long years of the Cold War, sought to establish a multi-lateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that
> America should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower.
>
>President Bush ultimately sided with the Department of Defense camp (also described as the neoconservatives), and their recommendations form the basis for the Bush Doctrine.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
>
>So the cold war strategy is similar to how we've been dealing with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.
>
>The strategy we're trying out now with Iraq is obviouslly different than in the past.