Kim truly is mad. In Korea, they call him "Tele-tubby." If he did not have the power of mediocre life or death over his starved millions, it might be funny. As far as the nation's name is concerned, though, DPRK is only 25% correct, viz. the Korea part.

Goes to show you the power of diplomacy, and bizarro viewpoint the GOP has about it at this stage of the game.

If you have a dialogue, it's just simply harder for a nation to LOATHE you. There is little reason for N Korea to attack us unless we continue to poke their eyes with hot sticks.

Newsflash to talking-point conservatives: 1). Spinning yet another Bush failure as Clinton's fault isn't going to fly (again). Is 6 years too little time for Bush to do anything?

2). Your boy Rummy has done biz with at least two of Bush's laughable 'Axis of Evil'.

3). Please understand that Bush's next lemonade-from-lemons 'moment' is to justify another Trillion dollars on failed Star Wars missle defense system... also note that N Korea's crappy missles need something much stronger than Viagra to be a 'stiff' threat to us. But hey, anything for more record defense pork for Raytheon and Bectel.

Being that Bush and Co. are like a wounded animal backed into a corner on so many fronts, it truly scares me what they'll do next to hold onto power. In fact, the Republicans are so scared about losing the mid-term elections, they've said privately they'll back a withdrawl AFTER the election... but they don't want it to become an issue. Hmmm, well I guess holding onto Senate control is worth A FEW HUNDRED SOLDIERS' LIVES. It's so hard not to be cynical...

Mind you, I'm not a big fan of North Korea, but doesn't it seem just a tad hypocritical of the nuclear club to be basically saying "we got ours but you can't have yours"?

Historically, Korea was, uh, Korea. This North & South stuff is a product of the cold war. Many Koreans in both N & S support reunification.

Don't get me wrong, that's not an endorsement by any stretch of the nutjob running that dictatorship, or its politics. But when we've still got 38,000 (I believe) troops hanging out there...I guess I don't get that one. Seems a waste of money, and a needless provocation.

I'm guessing the threat is being overplayed, but if the guy does build or have a decent bomb, that's a heck of a marketable commodity to sell to other nutjobs with oil money...while we're blockading and sanctioning everything else?

Seems Vietnam played out a bit better when we knew to cut our losses. How do we justify 38,000 troops still over there?