Well I certainly agree that not every single thing is founded on the Bush Doctrine. Like you said, missile defense goes back to Reagan's dream of SDI. However, we know now that it was pretty much the "bluff of the millennium" and actually played a crucial role in the Soviet collapse. However, there is a big difference in an 80s ABM system that was a mirage to having actual missile interceptors on the ground in an expanding NATO that continually moves closer to Russia.
My thinking is this...there are things that may have been part of Bush's foreign policy but they weren't necessarily unique, extraordinary, or any of that. So, yes, missile strikes may have been part of Bush's policy, but they were the policy of nearly every other President, too (umm...technology caveat). In other words (to make up a completely irrelevant and simple example) , if Obama crafts a policy of "winning elections is good", then I wouldn't call that the Obama doctrine. Some things are too common to consider the Doctrine of any one President, and Obama lobbing missiles could just as easily be called the Clinton Doctrine as the Bush Doctrine. Similarly, the missile shield has been a work in progress since Reagan (at least).
Thus, the Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is more about the use of war in a preventative fashion. And I distinguish between preventative wars and preemptive wars, whether the media does or not.
As far as military action goes, of course Bush didn't break any ground on the concept. Reagan had the incidents with Grenada and Libya, and we all know Clinton's various conflicts. Where Bush(or I should say his minions) differ on these issues is the implementation of it.
Is the US gonna walk into a Grenada type crisis in the 21st century, or even an ethnic cleansing type disaster? Of course not. Those types of foreign policy crisis do not fall in line with our agenda. We can walk into Iraq and Afghanistan, kill countless amounts of people, secure oil pipelines, do this in the name of "spreading democracy" or in Obama's words, "zones of freedom", and conveniently surround our next target(Iran).
There are currently hostages being held in North Korea. Obama doesn't mention this, and neither does the media. Where's the outrage? Liberals would be pissing and moaning if this happened on Bush's watch. The reaction to it(nothing) is exactly what the reaction would have been under Bush. There's no incentive for these guys to turn this into a crisis. A rescue operation or even a strong diplomatic push is out of the question.
There are obviously no plans on any saber rattling with North Korea, but you can bet your ass that the war drums are quietly beating behind the scenes in regards to Iran.
We're not leaving Iraq. We're not leaving Afghanistan. I don't care what the "change brigade" says. By the time he is up for reelection, we will have boots on the ground in either Syria or Iran, most likely Iran.
If you were against "spreading democracy" under Bush, why are you for it under Obama? I have the same question for Bush lovers.....why the intense hate for Obama? More war is coming, so both sides should be content.
Iran? Syria? Somalia? Maybe a future skirmish with Russia in Georgia, Ukraine, or the Czech Republic?
Pick your poison and swallow it. People either loved it and hate it now, or hated it and love it now. Its a continuation of the status quo. Left is right, right is left, down is up, up is down. All the partisan bickering does is gloss over the fact everyone is actually on the same team.
Obama was supposedly strongly opposed to the Patriot Act, yet voted for it. Change my ass...
But there is a difference, Bush's voter base vs Obama's voter base....if the bottom line is reelection and power, continuation doesn't make sense. What does Obama have to gain?
