Re: What?
I guess if one lives in a world full of immature fantasy your analysis makes sense.
What the analysis means to people who read for content and engage skeptical reasoning is that once a rogue state gets WMDs, it is much harder to deal with.
IOW, the cost has gone up a lot.
That means that the sound idea of preventing Saddam from getting WMDs is even more urgent and compelling.
It now means that the window of simply bombing the crap out of NK with no direct risk to the US is possibly closed.
If one was a mindless reactionary, one might make the argument that attacking NK right now was sound.
But not if one is engaged in actually thinking about policy.
Ed