Iran Has An "N"; While Iraq Has A "Q"

President says circumstances not the same as Iraq

...

Asked if he would act preemptively against Iran just as he did against Iraq, the president said the Iraq war came only after "we had tried diplomacy" with Saddam Hussein for over a decade.

"The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said, noting that the diplomatic effort was only starting in the case of Iran.

Yes, we had tried diplomacy for over a decade with Iraq and it totally failed to convince Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction, as demonstrated by Saddam's total lack of weapons of mass destruction.

What a failure!

No wonder Bush had to order the U.N. inspectors out of the country in order to unleash a decapitation strike on a restaurant of people who were not Saddam!

That diplomacy had utterly failed.

Unlike Bush's diplomacy with, say, North Korea, for instance. Which has yielded American concessions along with brand new North Korean nuclear weapons!

Or Bush's diplomacy with Iran, for that matter. Which has yielded an Iran threatening to make brand new nuclear weapons if the U.S. doesn't back off!

So, you can see how Iraq was totally different than Iran or North Korea.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had yielded to diplomatic measures, and, therefore, had to be urgently invaded.

Whereas, Iran and North Korea not only have weapons of mass destruction but they're actively selling them and co-operating with international terrorists! And, therefore, diplomacy is more appropriate.

So, Bush is right again! The circumstances are not the same.

And any idiot could see why he would place nearly the entire United States military in Iraq, rather than Iran or North Korea.

In fact, only an idiot could see why.