north ko-who?

iraq, iraq, iraq... it's all you ever hear out of the bush administration's collective mouthpiece anymore. and why? we ain't got nothing on them, tho they've sure got plenty on us. yet while the shrubbery drive ahead with their pre-election plan for global domination (even at the disgust of the world's citizenry), an actual threat to world stability is emerging in the asia-pacific—one that is being treated with all but indifference: north korea.

it all began in january, when bush declared north korea, along with iran and iraq, an "axis of evil." months later, bush stonewalled the north koreans who were interested in discussing their nuclear weapons program. but rather than a diplomatic conversation, bush gave them a diplomatic middle finger, so north korea reopened their program, only to then have bush get in their face about it. and then, to top it off—without a shred of evidence—the idiot prince of north america went as far as to accuse north korea of developing nukes for iraq.

now, shortly after reopening a nuclear reactor plant, north korea has begun expelling UN nuclear inspectors from the country and threatening the US with catastrophe. yes, kids, the threat of war is impending. just yesterday, the north koreans began installing machine guns in a UN demilitarized zone. these people aren't fucking around, apparently.

but the US is. today's news shows that the US has no interest in pursuing military force against north korea, a country which, unlike iraq (where our current attention is focused and which has complied with UN demands every step of the way), we know for certain is developing nuclear weapons with intent to attack america. but bush and his cronies are too busy chasing ghosts to care.

but perhaps there's another reason for bush's flimsiness on this issue. bush recently won support for his missile defense program, but would he have won that support without there being an actual nuclear threat? sure, he can attack iraq in order to further fuel his oil empire—they're easy prey... a nation of starving people. but to divert military attention to a nation that could actually give us a run for our money in a war? one that, if defeated, would remove any impending nuclear threat, thus eliminating the "desperate need" for a missile defense system? let's just say it wouldn't be economical for bush's business partners.

thus action against iraq rolls forth steadily, the real threat to US security is given nearly no attention at all, and the dollar—the almighty dollar—has become a sword of damacles swinging over our nation's head.