This discussion is, alas, academic simply because no WMDs were found in Iraq. That, coupled with the fact that the war has degenerated into an increasingly unpopular guerrilla, means that America, regardless whether under a Bush or a Kerry administration, cannot again act in furtherance of the principles of the neoconservative doctrine against Iran or North Korea - absent another strike on the homeland, which is certainly predictable.
Sadly, the Bush doctrine is moldering on the shelf where it will remain until we sustain another strike on the homeland, God grant that it not be done with WMDs. If such a strike does not happen, the fate of the doctrine does not much matter because the doctrine will not have been needed. If it does happen, without WMDs, the doctrine will be revived and vigorously applied. If the strike is with WMDs, the debate will be a straight up affair between appeasement and making war. If the strike consists of multiple blows with WMDs, it is not at all clear that the appeasers will lose the debate.
Meanwhile, we can only hope that Bush is reelected and the next strike is not too terrible. Bush, not Kerry, can perhaps arrange with Israel to effectuate his doctrine, in the absence of a strike, with a knock out raid against Iran's nuclear program. Perhaps he can fashion some intervention by China against North Korea. Kerry will lack the will and the credibility to do either.
Sadly, the left has meanwhile left war with Iran and North Korea more likely by undercutting Bush's credibility to carry on with his doctrine and thus vitiating his power to negotiate.
God damn them for it.