I don't know anything about the North Korean situation. Carter and Clinton were bright guys, and I'm sure it made sense somehow. Don't know that I'd have agreed with it, but maybe it seem workable on some level. Buy time, influence, I don't know.

And, there's something about the WMD situation I know I don't understand.

If an "axis of evil" or some other country has WMD, chemical, biological, nuclear, and is hell-bent upon using them against the US, why haven't they? Especially after 9-11, when a small chemical or biological attack would create widespread panic.

Would seem easy to get them here, especially for a sovereign nation. If they didn't want to do it themselves, would be easy to give them to a third-party agent, like al-Qaida. (Iraq and Iran have radioactive materials for a lot of "dirty" bombs. And explosives. And can transport them.)

Clearly, they could have done it already.

If they don't have WMD, wouldn't all the bluster, threats, invective and demonizing encourage them to make WMDs, and stash them around the US for the time the US attacked them?

Isn't the rhetoric about an "axis of evil" going increase their determination to either protect themselves or do as much damage to an attacker it could?

I think that's what most nations would do. I'd make it so expensive for you to attack me you might not want to. I would acknowledge you could obliterate me and survive yourself.

It will cost you, though, and that cost may be more than you want to pay.

At this point, the rhetoric on the US side doesn't seem to make much sense if one's goal is to rid the world of WMDs and make America safe.

Arf