Eugene Volokh goes over the differences between Iraq and North Korea. He’s right, as far as he goes — but now let’s ask the next question.
“If we can live with North Korea possessing and actively making nuclear weapons, why can’t we live with the possibility that Iraq may get nuclear weapons?”
Or, put differently: assuming inspections fail, and assuming it’s impossible to stand between Saddam and nukes, what makes that world more dangerous than the one we live in? And please. Don’t tell me Saddam is more loony than Kim Jong-il.
Amy says: As I watched Georgie answer every question with almost the same response, no matter what the question was
The irritating thing about his commentary is that AFAIK, the administration has been justifying focussing on Saddam on the theory that Iraq is *more* dangerous than North Korea.