Losing

The swagger's gone.

In Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, a speech designed to shift the political debate from a battle against al-Qaeda to a possible confrontation with Iraq, the president mentioned North Korea, Iraq and Iran and declared: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. . . . In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

All three issues came to a head in 2003: The United States invaded Iraq and discovered no weapons of mass destruction; North Korea began to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from fuel rods that had been under international observation; and Iran disclosed that it had made rapid progress with a previously secret uranium-enrichment program.

In contrast to its handling of Iraq, the administration has tried to resolve the North Korean and Iranian nuclear breakouts with diplomacy. But progress has been slow, in part because the United States has been reluctant to hold bilateral talks with either country except within the context of broader talks with other nations.

That wasn't diplomacy. The Bush administration has been practicing antagonistic indifference with respect to North Korea and Iran.

The Bush administration policy towards three countries that Bush essentially named as enemies in that speech has been real simple: not what Clinton did. The result has been a degradation of global security not seen since the height of the Cold War. The situation in Iraq is a civil war that will likely lead to a failed state and refuge for terrorist organizations. In Iran and North Korea, the administration has declared them enemies, but done nothing to confront what enemies often do: arm themselves against a self-declared enemy.

But that's okay. According to Republican strategists, "Hell, it knocked Foley off the front page."