Over the past week, Democrat Hillary Clinton has proclaimed her potential Republican rival John McCain to be the gold standard of wartime presidents. But lost in Clinton's fierce barrage against Barack Obama's national security experience is the inescapable conclusion about John McCain's own suitability as Commander-in-Chief. McCain's mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.

Hoodwinked by Chalabi

John McCain was certainly not alone in his enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the greatest American strategic debacle since the end of World War II. But as ThinkProgress detailed, McCain was an early and vocal advocate beginning in the 1990's for Ahmed Chalabi, the charlatan and pitchman for the Iraqi National Congress:

One of his key backers has been John McCain, who was one of the first patrons of Chalabi's grand-sounding International Committee for a Free Iraq when it was founded in 1991. McCain was Chalabi's favored candidate in the 2000 election since Chalabi knew that he would be able to free up the $97 million in military aid plus millions pushed through in Congress and earmarked for Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, but held up by the Clinton State Department.

Indeed, McCain was a Chalabi backer long before President Bush took power. In 1997, he tried to pressure the Clinton administration into setting up an Iraqi government in exile.

Despite Chalabi's past sentencing in absentia in Jordan to 22 years in prison for embezzlement and bank fraud, McCain declared in 2003, "He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart." Still, don't expect to see Ahmed Chalabi at President McCain's State of the Union address in 2010.

No doubt, John McCain was hoodwinked by Chalabi, the charismatic frontman for a self-serving exile group out of touch with the people - and reality - on the ground in Iraq. But with exile figures and dissident groups - and their questionable intelligence - set to play a critical role in the American approach to Iran, the United States can't afford any more of John McCain's judgment and experience.

Failing History 101

To be sure, Americans cannot trust John McCain to safeguard the nation's future because he does not understand its past. Nowhere is McCain's confusion more on display than in his repeated (and misguided) comparisons of Iraq to South Korea and his commitment to keep American troops there for 100 years.

Here, McCain traveling down the well-trod path of President Bush. Last June, then White House press secretary Tony Snow described Bush's "over the horizon support role" for the United States in Iraq as comparable to the American presence in Japan, Germany or South Korea:

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability."

The analogy, of course, is laughable. Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered to Allied forces in World War II and were occupied by U.S. troops after those nations' total devastation. Each subsequently became allies in the Cold War, and featured a large - and perpetual - American military presence as part of strategy to contain the Soviet Union. In South Korea as well, U.S. troops provide a guarantee against the external threat posed by the North. There, American troops serve as a trip-wire intended to trigger a massive U.S. response in the face of any aggression by Pyongyong.

In none of those places is the U.S. an occupying power, propping up a government against domestic threats or trying to limit a civil war. In Iraq, the United States is part referee trying to prevent the death spiral of sectarian conflict among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and part enabler, backing both the Shiite dominated Maliki in government in Baghdad and independent Sunni security councils opposed to it. While the fight against must Al Qaeda continue, the U.S. with its installations around the Persian Gulf does not need permanent, forward operating bases in Iraq.

And yet John McCain mimics the Bush administration's shockingly erroneous Korea model. In June, McCain echoed the White House, proclaiming, "We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds." By January 2008, McCain said "it would be fine" with him if the American forces remained in Iraq for "a hundred years:"

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years - (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that... (cut off)

McCAIN: We've been in South Korea...we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me.

As David Corn reported, McCain was only too happy to extend the American timeline in Iraq to "a thousand years" or "a million years." One month later, McCain nonchalantly claimed, "The U.S. could have a military presence anywhere in the world for a long period of time." Facing criticism for those comments, McCain on February 28th just dug the hole deeper:

"No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties...But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."

McCain's centuries-long commitment in Iraq is more than a little ironic. After all, in January 2003, McCain confidently predicted of the American invasion, "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."

Casual with Casualties

It's also ironic that John McCain would claim "the key to it is American casualties." McCain, after all, has repeatedly downplayed the dangers U.S. troops face, all in the name of helping sell the ongoing war in Iraq.

One of the more comic moments in McCain's cheerleading came on April 1, 2007. (Literally April Fool's Day - you can't make this stuff up.) Wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead," McCain briefly toured a Baghdad market to demonstrate that the American people were "not getting the full picture." As ThinkProgress detailed:

McCain recently claimed that there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed "walk freely" in some areas of Baghdad.

And just this past weekend, Senator McCain returned to a tried and untrue Republican talking point: Iraq is no more dangerous than most major American cities. Speaking to an audience on Saturday, McCain announced, "There's problems in America with safe neighborhoods as we well know." In this case, at least, even McCain realized his statement was non-sensical on its face and sounded the retreat. "I'm not making that comparison, because it's much more deadly in Iraq obviously," he said, adding, "But it's kind of the same theory."

Hothead with a Short Fuse

Alas, John McCain is no John Kennedy.

His explosive temper is the stuff of legend. An equal opportunity hothead, the Republican presidential nominee has a reputation for "raising McCain" with friend or foe alike.

Just ask Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn. While Cornyn endorsed McCain for the White House last week, in March 2007 he was on the receiving end of a McCain tantrum. Clashing over immigration policy, McCain dropped the F-bomb, saying to Cornyn, " F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."

Cornyn was not alone among Senate Republicans in feeling the wrath of McCain. In 1999, McCain told the Finance Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), "Only an a****** would put together a budget like this." On another occasion, he blasted the mild mannered Chuck Grassley (R-IA), " I'm calling you a f****** jerk."

That ticking time bomb that is John McCain worries many in American military and diplomatic leadership circles. As Salon noted just last week, many are terrified that President John McCain will be picking up that phone at 3:00 AM.

Major General Paul Eaton, who headed up training of Iraqi forces in 2003 and 2004 and now supports Hillary Clinton, made precisely that point.

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

General Merrill McPeak, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions, is a former Republican who now supports Barack Obama. His conclusion: "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile."

And it's not just Democrats who are frightened by the prospect of John McCain his finger on the button. Freshman Tennessee Senator Bob Corker admitted he's "had his moments" with McCain and refused to answer the question whether he is"temperamentally suited to be President of the United States." Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran, who nonetheless endorsed McCain, aired his concerns:

"The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me."

But it may have been Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired army colonel and formerly Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aide, who perhaps best summed up the worries of McCain's GOP allies:

"No dissent, no opinion to the contrary, however reasonable, will be entertained. Hardheaded is another way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me."

More Cowboy Diplomacy and Frontier Justice

If these defects of character and temperament sound familiar, they should. They make John McCain the natural heir to George W. Bush.

Bush, after all, brought his ersatz brand of cowboy machismo to the White House. Just after the 9/11 attacks, Bush talked tough about his plans for Osama Bin Laden, declaring, "There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" Later, as the nascent Iraqi insurgency began to take its horrible toll on American forces in 2004, Bush spit out, "Bring 'em on."

While even George W. Bush acknowledged "using bad language like, you know, 'bring them on' was a mistake," John McCain seems to have unlearned the lesson. In April 2007, McCain answered a question about his policy towards Tehran by breaking into song. Singing to the tune o the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann," McCain sang," Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

And like Bush, John McCain wants to get biblical on Osama Bin Laden. As I detailed last month, McCain's standard formulation is to declare that he will follow Bin Laden to the "gates of hell." At one campaign stop, McCain even told workers at a small weapons plant in New Hampshire that he would use their guns to do it:

"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."

Earlier today, the McCain campaign announced that its man would soon travel to the Middle East and Europe. No doubt, the extended photo-op is designed to highlight John McCain's leadership skills and project an image of him as Commander-in-Chief.

But being a wartime President isn't about bravery and sacrifice in combat forty years ago. And Hillary Clinton's delusions notwithstanding, longevity in Washington is no certain qualification, either. America's commander-in-chief needs judgment more than experience, persuasiveness more than pure power, and calm confidence more than sheer force of conviction. When it comes to friends and foes alike, there is simply no substitute for understanding and level-headedness.

John McCain is alarmingly lacking in virtually all the qualities that matter most. His self-proclaimed greatest strength on national security is in reality a glaring weakness. A McCain presidency would make the American people less safe and the world a more dangerous place.

In a dramatic reversal of policy, President George W. Bush this week sent a personal letter directly to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. According to the text of the letter obtained by the AP and other media outlets, Bush urged Kim to come forward with the details of his nuclear plan. "I want to emphasize," Bush wrote, "that the declaration must be complete and accurate if we are to continue our progress."

But according to anonymous sources within the White House, President Bush originally drafted a much harsher letter to Kim. Only after the personal intervention of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the Bush missive toned down.

Perrspectives has obtained the text of that rumored first draft:

Dear L'il Kim,

Back in 1999, I was chewing the fat with mi hermano Prince Bandar. He kept going off about North Korea. So I asked him, "Why should I care about North Korea?"

Turns out, he said, you guys were trying to build a nucular weapon. And now, I hear, you may even have a few.

Well, that is unacceptable. I'm the decider and I've decided you are not going to have a nucular weapon.

Make no mistake about it. I loathe you. I have a visceral reaction to you because you're starving your own people. You're a pygmy, a spoiled child at a dinner table.

My advisers tell me that you are a member of the Axis of Evil. Well, I'm not going to sit still while some major league a**hole seeks weapons of mass destruction. Your regime poses a grave and growing danger. I can't wait for the smoking cloud to take the form of a mushroom gun.

Kimmy boy, you are a tyrant. You could learn a thing or two about democracy from our partner in the multiple lateral talks, Vladimir Putin. (I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul. I knew that Pootie Poot was a man with whom I could work.) I'd suggest you start by reading some stuff from my favorite philosopher Jesus. He changed my heart; he could do wonder-working things for you.

So get with the program. Give up your nucular weapons. Tell us what you know about how you learned to build them from that Pakistani dude who was in the Wrath of Khan. And shut down your uranium enrichment plant at One Big Wang.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush

P.S. Why are you guys all named "Kim?" I guess there's a few named Park. What's up with that?

That wheezing sound you may have heard this week amid the chaos in Gaza, the carnage in Baghdad and the conflict in Lebanon was the final gasps of the Bush Doctrine in its death throes. Just two years after the President and his neo-conservative allies basked in the glow of their self-proclaimed moment of triumph, the Bush Doctrine of no safe havens for terrorists, American preventive war and democracy promotion is discredited, discarded - and dead.

The ruins of the Bush foreign policy vision lay strewn about the Middle East. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas militants now control Gaza after routing the Fatah forces of President Mahmoud Abbas. As Abbas seeks international support for his new prime minister in the West Bank, Hamas, the winner of the 2006 Palestinian elections, has established a de facto parallel government in Gaza. In Lebanon, Walid Eido became the fifth anti-Syrian politician assassinated in two years, even as the U.S.-backed Siniora government battled both Al Qaeda fighters in Palestianian refugee camps and the incessant pressure of Hassan Hasrallah's ever more powerful Shiite Hezbollah movement. And in Iraq, the new rubble of the Shiite shrine in Samarra and Sunni mosques in Basra symbolizes the unending sectarian violence and civil war which has paralyzed both the Baghdad government and the U.S. military surge. From Kabul to Cairo, U.S. backed governments find their democratic institutions under assault, their forces in retreat and their legitimacy in doubt.

What a difference two years makes. In March 2005, President Bush declared, "The trend is clear: In the Middle East and throughout the world, freedom is on the march." A smug Bush could almost be excused his premature elation. After all, the world had witnessed the first elections in Iraq, with the images of purple-fingered men and women filling television screens. In Ukraine, a poisoned Viktor Yushchenko led the "Orange Revolution" to power after hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest rigged elections. In Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution swept away the Syrian occupation in the wake of the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Harriri. And in Palestine, the death of Yassir Arafat brought the election of Abbas, and with it, renewed hope for peace with Israel.

President Bush's amen corner among the conservative chattering classes were quick to proclaim the triumph of the Bush Doctrine and its four pillars of American unilateralism, no safe havens, preventive war and democracy expansion. On March 4, 2005, Charles Krauthammer declared, "We are at the dawn of a glorious, delicate, revolutionary moment in the Middle East," adding "It is our principles that brought us to this moment by way of Afghanistan and Iraq." Three days later in a Time piece titled "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine," Krauthammer mocked the opponents of the President's Bush Doctrine vision of democratic transformation in the Middle East, labeling them "embarrassingly, scandalously, blessedly wrong." And the next day, the National Review's Rich Lowry proclaimed:

"By toppling Saddam Hussein and insisting on elections in Iraq, while emphasizing the power of freedom, Bush has put the United States in the right position to encourage and take advantage of democratic irruptions in the region."

But it is the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol who was perhaps the Bush Doctrine's most vocal cheerleader and self-satisfied proponent. In the wake of the Iraqi elections, Kristol declared the complete victory of the Bush Doctrine and the arrival of a seminal moment in world history ushering in a new era of democratic change around the globe:

"Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress."

It's no wonder that by July 2005, Krauthammer confidently announced that the Bush Doctrine and the idealism of the neo-conservatives, once so anathema to conservative foreign policy orthodoxy, was now "a governing ideology whose time has come." "What neoconservatives have long been advocating," he said, "is now being articulated and practiced at the highest levels of government."

As it turns out, President Bush was better lucky than good. And now, his luck is running out.

Of course, it's not quite accurate to say that the Bush Doctrine is dead. Actually, it was stillborn. An idea whose time never came, the so-called Bush Doctrine has been disproven by events on the ground. As the downward spiral of chaos in Baghdad, Beirut and the West Bank reveal, the neo-conservative proponents, to use their own parlance, have been mugged by reality. Only those most in denial, like the Heritage Foundation sponsors of "In Defense of the Bush Doctrine," still believe otherwise.

At the end of the day, the Bush Doctrine was a myth. It was merely a rhetorical device, just political opportunism masquerading as grand strategy. Along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have a safe haven, indeed. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and the WMD debacle, most of the American political and military leadership (as well as virtually the entire international community) opposes pre-emptive strikes against potential future enemies such as Iran and North Korea. And the Bush administration's notion of democracy expansion remains highly selective, as the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere attest. Even with Iraq, the embrace of democracy promotion was ex post facto: we didn't invade Iraq to promote democracy; we promote democracy because we invaded Iraq.

As for the Bush Doctrine, its short but unhappy life is at an end. Good riddance.

In the Washington Post this New Year's Day, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke has a compelling op-ed piece ("While You Were At War...") on the dangerous and rising opportunity costs of the Bush administration's Iraq fixation.

In a nutshell, Clarke argues that while President Bush and the U.S. national security apparatus have been focused like a laser beam on "grave and deteriorating" war in Iraq, other mounting security challenges have fallen off the radar. While the emphasis may differ, Clarke's warning is strikingly similar to my own expressed in June of 2004.

Clarke's thesis is straight-forward:

With the nation involved in a messy war spiraling toward a bad conclusion, the key deputies and Cabinet members and advisers are all focusing on one issue, at the expense of all others: Iraq.

National Security Council veteran Rand Beers has called this the "7-year-old's soccer syndrome" -- just like little kids playing soccer, everyone forgets their particular positions and responsibilities and runs like a herd after the ball.

The threat posed by the Bush adminstration's "kids soccer syndrome" over Iraq is that nascent security challenges will grow and fester. By the time the United States begins to respond, he warns, it may be too late.

For Clarke, the top 7 looming threats start with global warming, with its potential for devastating environmental change and economic upheaval. Second, an increasingly aggressive, retrograde Russia under Vladimir Putin will poses strategic worries and diplomatic roadblocks for the United States. Next, the growing leftward movement of Latin American democracies threatens to undermine America's position even as South America becomes economically more important - and independent.

Africa, too, is threatening to spiral out of control, as AIDS, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Congo and Somalia, economic deprivation and environmental disaster combine to potentially produce instability and humanitarian crisis on a massive scale. Meanwhile, with Iran, North Korea and other nuclear threats going unchecked, the risk of WMD proliferation continues to grow. In addition, the expanding network of transnational crime syndicates involved in drugs, weapons and human smuggling may undermine the abilities of sovereign national governments combating them. And last but not least, the still simmering fire of the Al Qaeda/Taliban sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border poses growing threats to the Musharraf government - and us.

If Clarke's alarm bells sound familiar to Perrspectives readers, they should. After all, in June 2004, I described the coming end of American unilateralism and the new 21st challenges the U.S. would face.

In "The End of the Unilateral Moment: Five Global Challenges for a New American Internationalism", I highlighted five priorities for U.S. policymakers that were being lost in the haze of Iraq. Beyond winning the war against Al Qaeda, these include addressing nuclear proliferation, managing the growing economic and military power of China, accommodating the rise of the European Union as an economic competitor, and adjusting to the realities of the new global economy. In 2004, I highlighted five key priorities for U.S. policymakers that were being lost in the haze of Iraq. Beyond winning the war against Al Qaeda, these include addressing nuclear proliferation, managing the growing economic and military power of China, accommodating the rise of the European Union as an economic competitor, and adjusting to the realities of the new global economy. As I wrote in 2004:

With American unilateralism disgraced and discredited [over Iraq], the United States can and must move on to a new internationalism to meet the five global challenges of the 21st century. In a time of global terrorist threats, the U.S. must rebuild its alliances, partnerships, and most of all, its reputation, to help ensure its security. In a time of new competition from the EU, China, India and others in the global economy, the U.S. must skillfully manage economic transition to maximize the American standard of living. At a time of rapidly growing Chinese economic and geo-political power, the United States must ensure that competition does not become conflict. And with the building threat of nuclear proliferation, the United States must work in concert with allies and international institutions.

With this as in so many other matters, Richard Clarke is helping to the point the way to the future. Hopefully, he'll get a better hearing from the Bush White House this time.

Just one day after President Bush forcefully defended his insistence on multilateral negotiations with North Korea, the White House has apparently okayed direct talks with envoys from Pyongyang.

Speaking in Seoul on Saturday, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Bush's point man on discussions with the North Koreans, signaled his willingness to meet directly with Kim Jong Il's emissaries once the stalled six-party talks resume:

"As many of you know, the Chinese have talked about putting together a six-party informal, and we both support that and we think that all countries are prepared to come to that informal meeting. Within the informal six-party talks, yes, I can [have direct discussions with North Korean envoys]. I just can't do it when they are boycotting the six-party talks."

That flexibility is a far cry from President Bush's stubborn statements Friday steadfastly affirming his commitment to his failing approach:

"What matters most of all is for Kim Jong-il to see the world speak with one voice...One thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of sitting at the table alone with the North Korean, for example. In my judgment, if you want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need partners to do so."

The seeming flip-flip on talks with North Korea, which Perrspectives first reported was imminent in May, reflects the failure of the Bush approach in the wake of Pyongyang's missile launches this week. In March 2001, President Bush undermined the budding "Sunshine Policy" of South Korea by adamantly refusing to engage with the North. The new President stated "We look forward to at some point in the future having a dialogue with the North Koreans but ... any negotiation would require complete verification." But by June 2004, with reports of North Korean nuclear weapons surfacing, press secretary Scott McClellan signaled the Bush administration's willingness to deal with the North, "We will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation...what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs."

During the Friday press conference, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malvaux pressed Bush on the growing threat from North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile tests. "Why shouldn't Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a failed one?" Malvaux asked. Bush, angrily, refusing to acknowledge Malvaux's assertion, simply replied, "Because it takes time to get things done."

After five years of Bush's ineptitude towards the Korean peninsula, he doesn't have much time left.

In the latest flip-flop from President Bush, the administration is planning to reverse course on North Korea. After five-years of a failed policy that produced a nuclear-armed North Korea, Bush will give the go-ahead for direct bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Apparently, the President has finally decided to listen to John Kerry's advice in 2004.

The New York Times reports that President Bush will soon approve recommendations from top advisors which include "a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty," even as the six-party talks on the North's nuclear disarmament continue.

If such a dual-track approach sounds familiar, it should. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry and other Democrats championed direct talks with North Korea on security guarantees and a final peace treaty to formally conclude the 1953 truce. With the multilateral talks including the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Pyongyang and Seoul stalemated and North Korea on the verge of producing one to two nuclear devices per year, Kerry summed up the results of Bush's refusal to engage with the North:

"For two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president's watch."

But President Bush was having none of it. During their second presidential debate, a caustic Bush lambasted Kerry about the "mixed messages" bilateral talks would send:

"It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have -- China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States -- and undermine them by having bilateral talks.

That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened? He [Kim Jong Il] didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy."

Kerry, of course, was right and Bush was wrong. Bush memorably said he "loathed" Kim Jong Il and barred American personnel from direct discussions with their North Korean counterparts. But now, five years after crushing South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North and embarrassing Korean President Kim Dae Jung during his March 2001 trip to Washington, President Bush is about to make a 180 degree turn.

And Bush claimed John Kerry was the flip-flopper.

These are pretty heady days for the White House and its fellow travelers. In Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia, movements for popular, democratic change seem to rule the day. The wisdom, rightness and prescience of the Bush Doctrine, they say, have been vindicated.

In triumphant and self-congratulatory tones, the President and his allies are taking credit for the sweeping reform throughout the Middle East. President Bush proclaimed, "Freedom is on the march." The National Review's Rich Lowry crowed "Bush has put the United States in the right position to encourage and take advantage of democratic irruptions in the region." And in Time, while "history has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome," Charles Krauthammer was not so cautious: "three cheers for the Bush Doctrine."

It's too bad there's no such thing.

For conservatives, the Bush Doctrine is the Rorschach Test as foreign policy paradigm; apparently, it is whatever you see in it. Unfortunately, what the Bush Doctrine has become in the popular imagination is not what how it started life, and certainly not anything that its neoconservative champions would recognize as their own...[MORE]

Read the full article.