You've stated elsewhere that you believe the Bush Doctrine is a concept concocted by the liberal media so I find it difficult to take your views on Bush's foreign policy with much more than "whatever."
The White House does release documents, and they often run counter to the ideas you and others have about its particular stances on events and behaviors; whether that's due to lack of obtaining the information yourselves I don't know, but it's out there.
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
Even President Bush argues that the rise of terrorism and rogue states in the 21st century is different from past threats to our national security and must be handled differently than we have addressed threats in the past. You seem to be the only one holding to the notion that he didn't reformulate international policy to that end...it's not as though he's apologetic for that.
You seem to want to take one piece and not the other...Saddam was a threat and had to be handled differently from other nation-states, but we don't really have a new foreign affairs policy. There are some really smart people who believe the way he formulated our foreign policy is the correct way to do it, I just disagree and think a different approach is more stable in the long-term. I'm not sure why you think that's anything to be ashamed of and therefore deny...or maybe you just don't understand what we mean when we talk about it because it's simply not historically accurate that past presidents have acted the same way.
But even if they
had, even President Bush believes that the ways we've handled threats in the past would not be sufficient to safeguard the nation in the 21st century.
Anyway, there's your answer. The discrepancies that you think you are pointing out are more to due with your misunderstanding of the issues you're talking about.