Bush Administration's Response to North Korea Reveals Much

I fail to understand the rationale (if that's what you can call it) of the Bush Administration's reaction to North Korean nuclear tests. Back in 2002 and 2003 the Bushies were positively foaming at the mouth to invade Iraq, who supposedly had WMDs. They even fabricated ties between Al Quaeda and Iraq to convince us that Iraq represented an imminent threat.

The [Iraqi] regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. - George Bush, 3/17/2003

They continued these fabrications long after we'd invaded Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, 1/14/2004

(Incidentally, you can find an enormous wealth of awesome lies by Bush and his administration at Bush on Iraq.)

Today, even though North Korea proudly claims their own nuclear test, and has brazenly stated their ambitions for nuclear weapons, the administration seems much less eager to wage war. Sure, they've condemned North Korea's actions, but today it appears that they're even downplaying the threat. Here is an excerpt from a Reuters article, W.House raises doubts about N.Korean nuclear arms:

But asked if he considered the reported test a big deal, [White House Spokesman Tony] Snow replied, "No, I think it's an important deal" and noted that "there are a lot of ifs, aren't there?"

Now, first let me say that I'm no fan of invading other countries. I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq then, and I certainly don't think we should invade North Korea now. But what's interesting here is how the Bush administration has changed its tune when it comes to WMDs in the hands of "rogue nations." When they were rallying support for an invasion of Iraq, they were publicly absolutist and unswerving in their resolution to protect the American people. When they were accused of just going after the oil, Bush and his cronies all claimed that it would be the same with any other country who threatened the U.S.. They pushed the invasion of Iraq so hard that it divided public opinion here, and seriously strained our previously good relationships with most of our allies. Where were the "ifs" back then?

I'd like to think that they've learned a thing or two about the mistakes they made regarding Iraq, and that is why they're so much less hawkish concerning North Korea. But I fear that the reality is more insidious. I think they just don't care as much about North Korea. They can sit back and call for sanctions, and then just let U.N. and North Korea's Asian neighbors worry about it. From the administration's perspective, an invasion of North Korea just isn't worth it. There's no oil to gain control of, no new territory to establish military bases, and China would never stand for it.

The administration's behavioral dissonance only bolsters my conviction that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (and many others) misled the public leading up to an invasion of Iraq. They were bound and determined to go into Iraq and they were willing to lie to the public in order to do it. They didn't stop to ask whether or not there were any "ifs" left to be answered.