Hardly a fabrication, Jim. When a country arbitrarily, preemptively invades another country that it considers inimical to its national interests---Iraq, for instance---it changes its social, economic and political institutions by taking control of them, as it did in Iraq. The reasons for the invasion, again in the case of Iraq, were not "clear, the force measured, and the cause just." The Bush doctrine was a cock-up start to finish. Wikipedia, in part:


"PNAC member and the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (DPBAC), Neoconservative Richard Perle, later expressed regret over the Iraq invasion and ultimately put the blame for the invasion on President George W. Bush;.[47]
Other than Bush and Rumsfeld, who are thought to have adopted neoconservative foreign policy thinking include Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.[48]
The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neoconservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other; a war of ideology where the United States must take responsibility for security and show leadership in the world by actively seeking out the enemies and also CHANGE THOSE COUNTRIES who are supporting enemies.[14][19][20][49]
The Bush Doctrine, and neoconservative reasoning, held that containment of the enemy as under the Realpolitik of Reagan did not work, and that the enemy of United States must be destroyed pre-emptively before they attack — using all the United States' available means, resources and influences to do so.[14][19][20]"

Last edited by King Brown; 05/30/13 09:19 PM.