One is that Bush ought to have attacked North Korea instead of Iraq, because North Korea presented more of a threat.

Another take is that the U.S. getting into a quaqmire in Iraq means that North Korea and Iran will both become Nuclear menaces. On the one hand, both countries believe that if that if Iraq had nuclear weapons, the U.S. would not have intervened. Second, because the U.S. military is already overextended, they believe they can proceed with nuclear ambitions without worrying about getting bombed.

Another is that Bush should have tried more diplomacy.

...Followed by the typical anti-Clinton bullshit, without addressing how the Bush policy of talking tough and imposing sancions could have done any better. Indeed, since this is occurring under Bush's watch, what the fuck is the president going to do other than point fingers at his predecessor?

And like Iraq, you assume that diplomacy is merely something that happens between the U.S. and the identified enemy. Perhaps diplomacy between the U.S. and N. Korea would be useless (much as between the U.S. and Iraq). But what about all the other countries? Other than Britain, our diplomacy failed utterly in Iraq - and the inability to successfully apply diplomacy with our allies has left us in a major hole.

In the case of North Korea, our efforts with South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia is what the diplomacy is about. China is the most important player in this high-stakes game. Should we abandon diplomacy and attack North Korea, would that mean that we will engage Chinese munitions and troops - much as we did in the '50s?

But the Bush strategy is always - we go it alone because we are the only protectors of the planet that have the will to do right. Going it alone is an act of hubris. The fact that we don't have the military resources to engage North Korea means that Kim can pretty well say and do whatever he wants. The U.S. did not attack North Korea under Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush because these other countries would have nothing of it. Diplomacy is not only something to be done with the enemy - it is something to be done with your friends. Bush doesn't seem to have any conception about this little known tidbit.

The third is that the regime of North Korea has a right to develop nuclear weapons in order to defend itself against its bellicose enemies

Typical war hawking that equates resistance to the use a force as a traitorous act that is sympathetic to these other countries. You might disagree with their non-intervention stand, but it is disingenious to then say that these same anti-war activists side with North Korea. Perhaps the lesson in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea is not that force must be used to improve the hopes of their people. Rather, perhaps the message is that force is a very crude tool to use as a political strategy. For all the force that was applied in Iraq an Afghanistan, the bottom line in those conflicts is that it has to be solved politically (much like Vietnam). You can go in and bomb the shit out of everything, but at the end of the day you are left with the same problem as you accuse the pacifists of having - since force won't solve the problem, how the hell do you propose to make things better?

And that's the bottom line. For as much as you point finger at Clinton, things are not only no better than they were, but the situations in Iraq, Iran and North Korea have significantly deteriorated. Instead of pointing back at the mistakes in the past, perhaps you could have the dignity to either propose a real solution to the problem, or get the fuck out of the way.

[Edit...]

I guess if one wanted to point fingers, the best bet would be at Truman for not letting McCarthy use nuclear weapons some 50 years back. And since Truman was a Democrat, I suppose Marlowe will feel vindicated. Of course, the next question is why Eisenhower didn't finish off the conflict once and for all, simply going the course with stalemate.

to let MacArthur go in and blow out those commie bastards! (courtesy of Back To School)

McCarthy - now there was a guy who knew how to take on the commies.