So...the U.S. National Security strategy takes a chapter from the Clinton playbook.
The U.S. is also beginning limited dialogue with Iran.
In policy circles I suppose this is called "realism", this is what it is also called in the real world. Bush's foreign policy approach was destined to change. The only group that actually believed his bellicose, abrasive, America-1st strategy would do anything other than damage international relations and weaken security were Bush and his advisors. Even Bush the elder and his experienced cadre were baffled by the turn the U.S. took. (It also appears Papa Bush's counselors may be on the way back.)
The idea of using America's might to encourage democracy and push for human rights is a noble one and one that has been a part of U.S. foreign policy since President Carter 1st used it to exploit an issue on which the Soviet Union was inherently vulnerable.
Yet in this administration it appears to be mere window dressing. Human rights and democracy are ancillary benefits, at best, to a middle-east strategy designed to restructure the entire region in just a few years. They are perfectly happy to support dictators who pay mere lip-service to human rights as long as it is their larger interest.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being practical, realistic, as it were. Compromise is the nature of relationships, international or not. Just don't promise the sky if you only intend to paint one on the ceiling.