Funny you should mention North Korea DougR. This isn't about Clinton vs. Bush, and in fact has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton vs Bush or Democrats vs Republicans. You are also conveniently either ignoring or discounting the fact that the Clinton administration the North Koreans much closer to compliance and signing the non-proliferation treaties than either the Reagan or Bush I administration ever did.

What about North Korea, then? Why diplomacy there, but not in Iraq? Especially considering how much more volatile the region surrounding Iraq is, than the area surrounding Korea?

We KNOW North Korea has nuclear weapons, and is threatening to sell the technology to other countries right now. Why is a diplomatic solution good for one, but not the other, especially when the military thread from Iraq has been successfully contained for over a decade? Why the double standard?

Americans aren't stupid. One of the main reasons Americans are now questioning the Bush administration's march to war, is the double standard the Bush administration is applying to Korea and Iraq. Diplomacy for solving one crisis (where oil and Bush I's legacy aren't an issue), and war for the other.

If Bush goes against American opinion and goes to war against Iraq unilaterally, or in opposition to the UN, NATO, and other allies, I don't think you will see the usual "rally round the president in times of war" popularity the Bush administration is arrogantly expecting as a given. So, is it worth dividing the American people, the long standing allies of the US, the United Nations Security Council, and NATO, just to appease these madmen? Just when would you say it is time for Bush to pull back from the brink? Under what circumstances would you withhold support from the president for going to war against Iraq?

Or are you just another of the Bush lifers, who will support him unthinkingly and unblinkingly, no matter what he does?