The original question had to be edited. I invite you to resubmit the second part. I think that Maddow's critique of the Bush Doctrine does have some value. Maddow's primary critique lies in the idea that in the Bush Doctrine, a war can be waged in a preventive manner that even if a nation does not present a threat to the United States, but rather has the potential for one, it can be invaded. Maddow's point is that this justification for war is a never ending one and a state of being in which all national sovereignty is violated in the name of a "potential threat" being evident. Maddow's criticism exists in the idea that the Bush Doctrine commits America to perpetual war everywhere in the world.
Maddow's criticism does have some merit to it. In the end, the parameters of how the Bush Doctrine defines "the war on terror" is one in which there will always be an existential threat to the United States. Preemptive action takes on an entirely new form if forces can be committed in any way, shape, or form to something that might be a threat. Even if America is not threatened or does not perceive an immediate threat, the Bush Doctrine guarantees that the potential for a threat is enough of a risk to justify war. Such a notion radically changes American presence in the world and the perception of America across the world. This is something that has to be examined because it places war as such an integral part of the national consciousness. It is here in which a bulk of Maddow's criticism is present.