What about North Korea?
A tough topic to rant about. Obviously (I hope) I don't want Bush to start yet another war. But North Korea seems to be a real threat to at least do some damage to the US, while Iraq apparently was not. Many have already pointed out (see here, for example) that comparing the treatment of North Korea with that of Iraq sends the clear message to other countries that nukes are the only way to avoid a US invasion. So what's the story here? What is Bush's motive? Here's a hint from the NY Times:
Another official who has discussed the issue with Mr. Bush said his thinking was that the North Koreans "are looking to get us excited, to make us issue declarations."

"And his answer to them is," the official added, `You're hungry, and you can't eat plutonium.' "

So, Iraq didn't have nukes, so we bombed, sanctioned and invaded them so they'd go hungry. North Korea has nukes, or says they do, so we ignore them so they'll go hungry. Sounds like starvation is the main goal of the Bushies, abroad and at home.

Actually, I have no idea. Some things are simply unfathomable, like why the tornadoes in Missouri hit one town but not another. Bush didn't like Saddam's moustache, so invade. He thinks Kim's hair is funny and cute, so don't invade. Who knows?

[Update] Word spellcheck reports that both "tornadoes" and "tornados" are valid plurals of "tornado." My spelling, with the "e," is used by the NY Times and CNN. I don't know--neither one looks right to me. Maybe I'll ask Dan Quayl.