Iran is openly working on a nuclear program, and has terrorist ties. North Korea is openly working on a nuclear program, and has terrorist ties. So isn’t it ironic, that out of the “Axis of Evil™,” the only country that we did attack, invade and occupy was the only one that did not have a nuclear program, and did not have terrorist ties? What does that say about the true motivation behind the push for that war? And if building nukes and being buddies with terrorists were the primary reasons we went to war with Iraq, as Bush and his administration have repeatedly claimed, then why are we not attacking Iran or North Korea, countries far more threatening to us? Why, when Bush was so fired up and rarin’ to invade Iraq, is he now striking this tone when the true and real threat from Iran and North Korea is so much more deadly?

“What we’re doing now is beginning to lay out the strategy of what happens in the Security Council. That’s what friends do: We consult; we talk; we strategize as to how to achieve an important objective, which is not allowing – for Iran not to have a nuclear weapon.

“And you’re going to see a lot of public discussion about this matter. And the Chinese have got an opinion; the Russians have an opinion. We have opinions. Everybody has opinions.

“Our job is to form a common consensus. And so this is what’s called diplomacy. I know you know that, Steve. I don’t mean to insult you. But diplomacy is about talking to friends, allies and others about a common objective. This meeting has got a lot of diplomacy in it today, because this is a subject on which we spent a lot of time. I’m very interested in the chancellor’s opinion on the subject.”

The Chinese? The Russians? He’s paying attention to them now? Their opinions matter? That’s not what we heard in the entire buildup to the Iraq War. Remember, back then, all conservatives were saying, screw the Russians, damn the Chinese, to hell with the Germans, and let’s make “French” a traitorous expletive. A common consensus was never a goal for Bush. Remember, he didn’t even want to go to the U.N., he had to have his arm twisted to do that. And when he couldn’t get the major powers aside from the U.K. to go along, he dismissed them, called them all “irrelevant,” and dumped them on the wayside as he charged to war. And yet here he is today, saying the above, standing next to the German Chancellor.

Could it possibly be that Bush doesn’t deem it all-important if a hostile nation is building a nuclear program and terrorist ties? Could it possibly be that this was never the reason he wanted to invade Iraq, which had neither of these attributes?

Or, perhaps it could be that he has so squandered American military might (excessively more than Clinton ever came close to, though something that conservatives castigated Clinton severely for, and yet don’t seem to mind with Bush), that Bush has essentially rendered our military impotent to fight any nation that might pose a real threat to us?

So let’s look at the scorecard, shall we? How has Bush done in his “Struggle Against Global Extremism™”? Iraq: not a threat, no nukes, no terrorist ties–we invaded, occupied, lost 2220 (and counting) American lives, killed tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, depleted our military strength. Iran: nukes, terrorist ties–Bush has done little or nothing of real consequence to stop them, and by invading Iraq, has probably prompted them to step up their nuclear program. North Korea: nukes, terrorist ties–Bush ignored them for years, let the problem fester, and now things are worse than ever.

Excellent job!