>>I'd agree that President Bush's "doctrine" is new, ...
>
>Alright.
>
>
>>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.
>
>Whoever it wants, whenever it wants in the judgement of the US with the counsel of other democractic countries. So far we've taken out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
>
>Do you disagree with our judgement? Do you think we should have let the Taliban and Saddam keep going about their business?

There you go again, turning some complex factors into a simple question. This simply is no fun, Mike. Why didn't you give your interpretation of the quotations given and how they actually relate????? Anyways...

No disagreement regarding the Taliban, who were given every opportunity to turn over Bin Laden and opted not to. Since Bin Laden had stated flatly that he was responsible and the Taliban would not apprehend him and send him to face justice, they got what they deserved.
But... don't forget that what is trying to be passed off as "democracy" there is basically a joke. And that is so because President Bush and his advisors chose to withhold troops for their planned invasion of Iraq and did so long before any "intelligence" said they should invade Iraq.

Saddam is a totally different story. Sadly, because President Bush has advisors who were bent on war with Iraq, we'll never know if weapons inspectors could ultimately have resulted in the demise of Saddam. Or if some group could have been funded to take him out. Or if he might just have died of embarrassment. Or if he might have accepted exile. Or...
Prime Minister Blair was "on side" simply because he was (is still?) President Bush's "poodle", as the British press so cleverly put it. And virtually all of the other "willing" of the "coalition" were bought (that's bought, not 'brought') into the picture. It's commonly called BRIBERY.

Now you do for me what I just did for you... tell me how President Bush's policy of pre-emptively spreading democracy isn't really a policy wholly designed to keep the U.S. as the only powerhouse on earth and to get its hands on what it needs to keep it that way. And tell me how this differs from Hitler's desire to have had a 1000 years global Reich.