(via Daniel Drezner)   The eminent journal Foreign Policy published this article by John Lewis Gaddis analyzing George W. Bush's National Security Strategy document.

The differences [between Bush's and Clinton's] are revealing. The Bush objectives speak of defending, preserving, and extending peace; the Clinton statement seems simply to assume peace. Bush calls for cooperation among great powers; Clinton never uses that term. Bush specifies the encouragement of free and open societies on every continent; Clinton contents himself with "promoting" democracy and human rights "abroad." Even in these first few lines, then, the Bush NSS comes across as more forceful, more carefully crafted, and--unexpectedly--more multilateral than its immediate predecessor. It's a tip-off that there're interesting things going on here.

A cynic might point out that Bush's NSS was a far more pivotal document going in and that as a result, it was authored to push many the goals that that Gaddis lists.  I'm only partially cynical however, and for the most part, I really *do* believe that these strategy tenets are more firmly espoused by George than by Bill.  

Paraphrasing the author, Clinton took for granted that the world was marching towards an End of History while Bush sees at least a clash within the Islamic civilization to make this happen.

On Preemption, Gaddis writes:

The strategies that won the Cold War--containment and deterrence--won't work against such dangers, because those strategies assumed the existence of identifiable regimes led by identifiable leaders operating by identifiable means from identifiable territories. ... How do you deter someone who's prepared to commit suicide? ...Weapons of mass destruction were the last resort for those possessing them during the Cold War, the NSS points out. "Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice."