The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

Is this the same efficient FBI that didn't detect the hijackers who flew planes into buildings? I'm not sure I want to swallow second-hand information from Laurie even though I have seen her interviewed several times. I never heard her say that the Clinton White House rejected the clue that Iraqi intelligence provided the false ID from this Bush White House -- it's not a smoking gun as still doesn't prove that they knew it was to blow up the World Trade Center. I could likely make the same supposition for fear of being thought nieve but it's circumstantial evidence at best. If it's in the book, I guess I'd have to get the book. Perhaps the Clinton administration was right and we didn't go to war then and we may not go to war now. It does highten my suspicions of Iraq another notch but if it is proven, I'd assume you think that would be a good reason for the Bush Administration to go to war even if the Clinton Administration didn't. Otherwise, how come they aren't?

That some claim 'sits on the pages of a book' is completely and thoroughly compelling as an argument that the claim is true.

But, LW, I'm not comfortable with your near-slander of the heroic FBI. True, for the rank and file, taste in auto, shades, and suits is fairly pedestrian, but at the highest levels, closets are just jam-packed with gowns of exquisite tailoring.

Hoo boy -- those older unmarried males in the FBI (no immediate family worries) and their perchance for snappy suspenders and other affected style, perhaps they are too buzy cruising each other than paying attention to terrorists. Only kidding.

Just thinking: North Korea has a large military at the expense of thousands of its citizens starving to death. They may have a couple of nukes. What are they protecting? Nobody wants what they have. Iraq also has a large military, but the Iraqi's are living a somewhat better life - not much better, but somewhat better. Iraq has something the world needs and uses; oil, but Saddam does not have the military to protect their oil. It's to invade other neighboring countries to colonize it. There is no other reason Iraq needs a military - any more. The surrounding Arab countries, and most of the world community, do not want the US to have a war with Iraq. Are these two countries and Iran the "Axis of Evil?" For whom the bell tolls....... c.i.

With concern over North Korea's nuclear capabilities growing, President Bush reassured the American people Monday that "extreme force" will be used to remove Saddam Hussein from power if the Iraqi president fails to give up suspected weapons of mass destruction.

"For years, Kim Jong Il has acted in blatant disregard of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons, and last week, he rejected it outright," Bush told reporters after a National Security Council meeting on North Korea. "We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders.

Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein."

Bush on North Korea: "We Must Invade Iraq"

John le Carré
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html

blatham, Correction: the president and his henchmen have gone mad. Not the people of the US. c.i.

ci

Yes. One might wish the entire State Department cleaned out and replaced with barbers from Ohio.

Barbers certainly don't lack for answers to all the world's problems, do they? Of course, the less responsibility, the easier the answers.

from The Onion:

TOP STORY
Bush On North Korea:
'We Must Invade Iraq'

WASHINGTON, DC--With concern over
North Korea's nuclear capabilities
growing, President Bush reassured the
American people Monday that "extreme
force" will be used to remove Saddam
Hussein from power if the Iraqi
president fails to give up suspected
weapons of mass destruction.
Full Text »

Do you think he's trying to send a message to Kim in a round about way? c.i.

Amateur Hour at the White House
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, January 16, 2003; Page A19
It is Casey Stengel time for the Bush administration. The longtime Yankee manager, having crossed the river to run the hapless New York Mets, looked over his field one dismal day and wondered, "Can't anybody here play this game?" The same can be asked about the Bush administration and its approach to North Korea.
Even to call it an approach hardly does justice to what has happened. It has been a stumble, a fumble, an error compounded by a blooper. It has been wrong in its conception and amateurish in its execution -- as appalling a display of diplomacy as anyone has seen since a shooting in Sarajevo turned into World War I.
The writer seems to have touched all the bases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64238-2003Jan16.html

au, Very good! I now know I'm not alone in my thinking..... c.i.

With this new revelation that N. korea has missiles that can reach the West coast and coupled with having Nuclear devices who do you now believe is more danger to the US and in fact the world. Iraq or North Korea.

Iraq!

AU:

I'm glad I live on the East coast. One less thing to have to worry about!

New Haven, Don't get too comfortable. Al Qaeda still targets the east coast for their "convenience." Tall buildings, the pentagon, white house, masses of people...... Did you buy plastic and duct tape? c.i.

Just trying to check my understanding against that of others here...

I understood that NK has designed/built a missile intended to be capable of the distance involved, but that they have not yet tested same, much less successfully. Am I wrong?

as an aside: "New Delhi-India conducted its fourth missle test this year Wednesday, firing a supersonic cruise missile capable of hitting major cities in Pakistan. Islamabad denounced the test as a sign of New Delhi's "massive militarization."