Any nation supporting or harboring terrorists were also guilty of aggression, and therefore we had a right to exercise our own self defense in going after them."
The doctrine was therefore about self defense and responding to aggression, not pre-emption.
You are blurring the lines with your so-called distinction between the "Gibsonian" definition of the Bush Doctrine and what you deem to be the proper definition of the Bush Doctrine. You obviously haven't thought this through very well either.
If a nation harbors or supports terrorists, by your assessment they are guilty of aggression. This is contrary to an historical understanding of what constitutes aggression. It's been hijacked and then redefined with a neoconservative slant:
From Merriam Webster:
1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments ; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration
You see, "aggression" has a definitive meaning. Aggression is an act peformed
by one party against
another. It's not the assumption that something just might
be done. It's not the existence of unsavory groups in certain countries or regions.
Harboring terrorists, or even supporting them, is not aggression, nor is it an act performed
toward anyone else (unless, of course, it is bastardized or construed to mean whatever it is you want it to mean, definition be damned).
This is where the overriding notion and understanding of preemption comes into play. Although you Bushites think you have articulated a definition that frees itself from the concept of preemption, you have inescapably bound yourself to it with the above explanation.
It is quite the quantum leap to draw an equivalence between the accusation
of harboring terrorists to that of an act of aggression.....it is an even grater leap to conclude that because there are state or non-state sponsored terrorists existing in a certain country or region, that that is definitively regarded as an act of aggression and therefore one that justifies war.
America "harbors" terrorists. Look at McVeigh, look at the new darling of the conservative media, Ayers, look at the myriad of domestic terrorist cases in the US, look at the CIA and the covert actions performed by the American government in foreign territories....merely having terrorists within your national border doesn't entail there is aggression, or an act of aggression being made by the nation.
If you choose to attack a country because you don't like the groups organizing within it, and have not been attacked by said country or it's people (ie: Iraq), but you think
they might do something bad, then you are launching a preemptive attack on them.