[SunStar]

More clarity from the big man...

[E Rocc]

The other reason is that South Korea, Japan, and even China all have a compelling interest in preempting any North Korean misbehavior. They can "hold the fort" while Iraq is dealt with. Our leadership role is less critical with North Korea than it is with Iraq.

-Eric

[Happygal]

It's indicative that Clinton said he didn't have a 'defining moment' in his Presidency like Dubya had with Sept 11.

That makes me wonder a helluva lot about what Clintons international policy may have been.

[Anti-Bolshevik]

"North Korea is starving, so they're using their nuclear program to get attention and food and oil. But when you have a nation like Iraq that is hiding and denying its nuclear program, you have to worry"

A laughable assertion from another 'Republican first Conservative second' individual.

We know as fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons. They have openly boasted that they will sell those nuclear weapons to the highest bidder on the black market. In contrast, Iraq has been severly hampered by economic sanctions and is not even close to the nuclear capability of neighboring terrorist Iran. That combined with the laughable Iraqi army -- that surrenders to television crews -- makes for a country that is in no way as much threat to the United States as North Korea (or Iran for that matter).

North Korea and Iran should be our priorities, Iraq should be subsequently dealt with.

[DoctorMichael]

Rush also said that Hillary would NEVER run for the Senate.