Update on the Sanger article on Bush

This morning I came across this post by Mickey Kaus which questions some of the terms used in David Sanger's March 13 New York Times article (referenced in my previous post). For instance, Kaus says

"pre-emption" and "going it alone" are hardly "isolationist" impulses. They're unilateral non-isolationist impulses, no? So the old direction is non-isolationist. The "new" direction is non-isolationist. What's the big change?

I have to say that Kaus is correct about Bush previously being unilateral and non-isolationist, but if Kaus is implying there has been no change in Bush's policy he is wrong. Before, Bush was all about pre-emption and going it alone, and now he is trying to get help and cooperation from around the world. That is the change, and that is the point of Sanger's article as I read it.