How long did Bill Clinton take in attempting to hammer a lid down on North Korea's nuclear aspirations ten years ago? If memory serves correctly, Pyongyang became quite significant in terms of being a priority among those responsible for American foreign policy. That showdown overshadowed the enormity of other hot spots in the world, even such grotesque examples as Bosnia and Rwanda.

In the end, we used both the carrot and the stick. Clinton arranged for fuel oil to be delivered to the Communists, and we set them up with harmless light-water nuclear power. Although assailed by modern conservatives as appeasement, these were deft diplomatic maneuvers that today ring with the melody of nostalgia. Why? Because, the regime in North Korea kept insisting that they needed nuclear reactors for humanitarian purposes, i.e. creating electricity.

Rather than playing a game of brinksmanship with a bunch of known nut cases, the U.S. won the debate while staying within their opponent's framework. You need generating capacity? You got it, we said; now shut down the bomb factory. And for the remainder of Clinton's presidency, they did.

Of course, over in Pakistan, the wrath of Khan was brewing. In the unsteady wake of General Pervez Musharraf's coup, in which his military gently seized power, Pakistan's nuclear program developed a little leak. Not the kind that horribly kills a few unlucky technicians, but the kind that resulted in global black-market nuclear proliferation. Enriched uranium became the weapon of choice for what some might call "rogue states" like Iran, Libya and North Korea (Israel, assisted by France, is believed to have created its own stockpile of plutonium bombs).

Quietly, in violation of their agreement with the United States, the North Koreans managed to construct two "small" nuclear bombs. We learned about this in October of 2002. Our reaction, based on decisions made by the president, was to attack Iraq, even after our diplomat was practically slapped in the face by his North Korean counterpart ("So what? What are you going to do about it?").

Now, Kim Jong-Il, successor to Kim Il-Sung, makes no bones about his intentions. Inspectors were expelled from the country at the end of 2002. A year and a half later, we have done nothing. In the meantime, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is estimated (by our own administration) to have grown from two bombs to as many as eight. The new crop isn't the enriched-uranium variety, either. After the inspectors were booted out, they fired up the old plutonium reactor - the one Clinton had taken offline - likely creating the kind of bombs that vaporized three of the Bikini Islands.

Yet we fuss around, signing large contracts with, and cutting hefty checks to, some of the president's oldest friends and business associates who are busting their tales - sorry, tails over in Iraq. As an aside, the "government" to which we've handed sovereignty there has now decided to impose martial law, vowing to "annihilate" the insurgents. The first step they took was to create their own spy network, to be dispersed among the populace (I sure hope the Iraqi people are quick learners, because we're really accelerating this democracy thing).

But, as already demonstrated, this administration is quite different from the last one. Our silence toward North Korea, this pointless thumb twiddling with other Pacific Rim nations, only encourages their lunatic government. They no longer say anything about wanting nuclear power for generating capacity. Now, they talk of their need for a "deterrent to aggression." Our words to them, such as they have been, mean nothing compared to our actions elsewhere in the world.

Would you stand next to a slavering dog as it snarled, snapped its jaws and raised its hackles at you? That's what Bush has done. Clinton put his terms on the table, without any kind of third-party arbiter in the way, and told the North Koreans to either accept it, or that they would "cease to exist as a country." They understood that.

The Bush administration has made a lot of mistakes; all but the starchiest of neo-cons are willing to admit that. Some of the procedural stuff makes us touchy, as the man has shown a shockingly callow disregard for the words of our Founding Fathers. Those things, however problematic, can be corrected through voting cycles. The war in Iraq is an affront to our status as a fair and balanced superpower, and the death tolls on both sides are heartbreaking, because they were not necessary...

But that's peanuts compared to what will happen if North Korea decides to freak out and start hurling missiles all over the world, as far away from them as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix. The first Korean War was bad enough, with only conventional ordnance utilized. To speak in the GOP's own language, September 11th would be a footnote compared to the carnage that might result from Bush's obsession with the Middle East as opposed to the clear and gathering nuclear threat growing in Southeast Asia.

We're not dealing with a country that is known for making sound and practical decisions here. We're not dealing with a country that has anything much to lose. We're not dealing with a country that feeds off the paranoia and delusion that rules the mind of the person with his finger on The Button.

We're simply not dealing with the problem of North Korea.