There a few nuances to consider regarding Pakistan.

Its handful of nukes exist solely to put pressure on India. Pakistan acquired them because India built nukes. Pakistan's medium-range launchers are all located in the east adjacent to India. Their nukes are essentially symbolic and don't pose any credible threat to the US. Pakistan bears no resemblance to North Korea, so that boogeyman holds no terrors.

The territory in question is only technically part of Pakistan. It lies within its formal borders, but is not under the control of the Pakistani government. While elements of the government, such as the intelligence service, are reported to be sympathetic to the Taliban, I'd judge that the situation in the northwest is a thorn in the side of the government as a whole. It wouldn't take a whole lot of spin to come up with a face-saving story that we're helping Pakistan regain control of outlaw territory at the same time we're taking a legitimate action in the war on terror.

It's not hard to explain the Taliban's focus on retaking Afghanistan as based on emotion. It was their country for a while, and they were ousted in a humliating defeat. Of course they want it back. Northwest Pakistan is a convenient base for guerilla operations, but it's not home.

And admit it: if Bush did something like rolling into Pakistan you would be right in the front lines screaming about what a stupid and senseless thing he was doing.

Tom, Tom, Tom...here I am making a rational case for going into Pakistan's northwest territory, and you make a wild accusation like that. I'm displeased with the war against Iraq because Bush's reasons haven't held water. Continuing what we started in Afghanistan would have been based on entirely solid strategic reasons, and not only that, would have benefited from the approval with which we started. Momentum counts. You're just falling back on an ad homineum attack, and that dog don't hunt.