Does Bush have any goals regarding North Korea policy whatsoever?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

of course not. Too bad he can't get the rest of the world to join in containing North Korea and instead has to spend all his time rebuilding relations ruined by his little Iraq adventure hunting for some Nonexistant Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oops!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except the situations in NK and Iraq were not the same.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except the situations in NK and Iraq were not the same.

Well, the irony remains. And in NK doesn't it make sense to get all the neighbors involved in the talks? They have quite a stake in containing NK's nuclear ambitions. I think my point was that many of the critics of the multilateral-NK/unilateral-Iraq positions simply wanted to give the Bush Administration a hard time regardless of the merits of the case.

Since Bush had such a pigheaded attitude toward invading Iraq no  matter what (which we saw now was a huge waste with no WMDs), I'd rather have others around since I don't trust whoever he'd send to bilateral talks there. I don't really care if NK talks are multi- or bi-lateral, and I probably wouldn't care in Iraq either if someone as stubborn as Bush wasn't in charge, but it's not that hypocritical.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only people who hold a "no outside intervention at all" policies are Buchanan-type isolationist conservatives. Who's the last Democratic president who did so, or Democratic politician who promoted such a policy?