I like how that sounds.
And the difference is?
Favor forcing regime changes? You bet! Remaking East Kaboomistan in the American image??? No! Rebuiilding East Kaboomistan with American money???? Absolutely not!
"Regime change" may or may not work, but your recipe looks like a prescription for disaster. The country that invades "East Kaboomistan" and conquers it and doesn't contribute to the rebuilding will naturally be hated, and the mess that it's helped to create will simply breed further terrorism.
Kristol, Boot and Kagan clearly wouldn't be taken seriously if they simply said "nuke'em till they glow," nor could they put in a good word for isolationism and expect to win support for their cause in establishment circles. And there are limits as to how far they can go in preaching pure self-interest unmixed with altruistic rhetoric. Their statements which you criticized have to be understood in this light. Even if they wanted the US to act like an predictable "mad dog," they couldn't say so publicly. Interventions can be so risky and the results so uncertain, that they need to be given a "Wilsonian" veneer of human rights and democracy to win support.
As for Ledeen, what grounds do you have for charging him with inconsistency? He may be embarassing or extreme, but his views have been fairly constant over the years.
I like how that sounds.