Misleading Us Into War?

Prior to the Iraq War, many opponents of taking action against Iraq pointed to the actual nuclear threat of North Korea as opposed to the hypothetical threat of Iraq. They argued why are we attacking Iraq when we know Iraq does not have nuclear weapons yet while not dealing with North Korea which does have nukes?

Now, of course, they argue we were misled into the Iraq War since Saddam did not appear to have an active nuclear program (and they conveniently continue to forget that the administration did not argue Iraq was an "imminent" nuclear threat).

And as Iran comes up for consideration as the mullahs approach a nuclear capability at some unknown point in the future, North Korea is again brought up by opponents of dealing with Iran as a more dire threat that we should deal with first instead of Iran.

First of all, I return to my rule of thumb:

Better to stop the nutjob without nukes from getting their first nuke than stop the nutjob from getting their second nuke.

Second, as if "doing something" about North Korea first would involve anything other than groveling and shoveling money at the Dear Leader. "Deal with" North Korea first, indeed. Yeah, it would be let's make a deal alright. An Albright redux with bigger and better prizes just for playing.

And third, just how do we know North Korea has nuclear weapons? Seriously. They strongly imply they do. But Saddam was at least as vocal about his WMD prior to 2003 as the Pillsbury Nuke Boy's regime is today.

Says Strategypage:

Despite North Korean claims that it has nuclear weapons, American defense officials doubt this is the case. It is believed that if North Korea had a working bomb design, they would not hesitate to conduct one or more underground tests (which are easily detected). If a test failed, it would be more difficult to detect, given the amount of tunneling always going on in the north. This often involves high explosives, which is all that could be detected if a nuclear bomb failed to go "nuclear" (with only its high explosives detonating.) If North Korea did get a nuclear bomb design to work, they would want the world to know for sure.

So what intelligence are the proponents of dealing with North Korea first cherry-picking in their rush to dealing with North Korea first? How do they know North Korea's nuclear threat is looming? (Surely a more dire situation than even "imminent.")

As I've said before regarding North Korea's nukes, smoke 'em if you got 'em. Because, you know, I'd hate to be misled into surrendering to North Korea as much as I'd hate being misled into war over North Korea.