Yes, they do. I'm unsure how much of it is merely a response to use of it by the Left (and defense of Bush against sordid-excess abuse) and how much of it actually is due to righty initiative.

There's nothing novel (not to mention, nothing truly controversial) about such a normal, logical policy. (What's wrong is when it is the basis for a wrongful naming or descriptor for something else, instead.)

If I have to punch someone in the face in order to keep them from punching my wife in the face…preemptive strike it is!

And when that someone sees you walking down the street the following week, grabs a shotgun from his car and empties it in you belly…preemptive strike it is!

That is one hell of a logic leap. You went from me saying sometimes it is okay to you thinking that I would agree with Pearl Harbor.

I am just pointing out that one man's sneak attack is another man's preemptive strike…

Once you decide that US preemptive strikes are acceptable, what do you do/say when country X launches a preemptive strike on country Y, or after having seen the US launch a preemptive strike on country Y, country Z decides to launch a preemptive strike against the US.

I do agree…sometimes preemptive military strikes are acceptable.

So the Japanese were right to bomb Pearl Harbor in 1941… After all it was only a preemptive strike.

I may be wrong, but the man leading the QDR and who will make the final decision on any Doctrine changes (on the part of DoD), is a Republican…

Query…how many lefties require how many months to read and redraft the words contained in 7 sentences?

Answer……..until the public catches on to the fact that they really have no earthly idea of what the hell to do, they will continue to make comments about how wrong those 7 sentences are from a prior administration and pat themselves on the back that they are doing a better job.

Makes sense to me.

No, though you're close to the truth about why the Bush policy could be faulted. Almost!

A valid pre-emption doesn't require weapons of mass destruction (nuke, chem, bio) about to be used against the US itself, obviously.

Any threat, against any interest, not only the US territory specifically, is what matters.

(So is proportionality! But that arguably is outside the essence of pre-emption, the strike or no-strike decision.)

Here is what's needed, where Bush arguably failed:

“that pose an actual threat to the U.S.”

I do agree…sometimes preemptive military strikes are acceptable.

I don’t have a problem with it being called the Bush Doctrine – he was the one to articulate it (or misarticulate it) most recently and it’s attained common usage.

It was an emotive expression and an attempt to additionally tarnish the doctrine, which is perfectly logical and ethical and defends our interests properly, which (more than Bush's open support of it) is why so many Usual Suspects would have opposed it no matter who had been President. (“Bush” was just “icing on the cake” — the icky, toxic cake).

On the “spinning,” I'll try to read the QDR to be able to answer that more informatively.

On “The neocons must be apoplectic over this,” I am sure we'll get an earfull

Very informative. Thank you.

DOD, however, sounds like they are spinning this instead of just saying that they are re-evaluating whether the Bush Doctrine is appropriate. The “international environment is more complex than it was in 2002″? C'mon. The real change is not the extent of complexity, but rather that the authors of the Bush Doctrine, Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush, are no longer in power. That they are gone gives DOD the opportunity to revisit and revise a bad policy. The spin isn't necessary.

That being said, it is good that we are re-evaluating the policies of BushCheney. Their twisted viewed the world is no way to run foreign policy.