As we could've predicted, the conservatives have been blaming Bill Clinton for the fact that North Korea has nukes. This makes absolutely no sense.
1. North Korea had no nukes while Clinton was in office.
2. North Korea had no nukes for more than five years after Clinton left office.
3. George W. Bush was president for more than five years before North Korea obtained nukes.
4. George W. Bush knew North Korea wanted nukes and new that North Korea was a rogue nation (remember the Axis of Evil speech?).
5. George W. Bush knew the importance of preventing the spread of nukes after 9/11.
6. Theoretically, George W. Bush didn't want North Korea to get nukes (he said it was "unacceptable").
one of these facts is even slightly disputable. Except maybe No. 6. Bush said he didn't want North Korea to get nukes, but he could've been lying. He's lied a whole lot in the past. And he likes to have a boogeyman roaming around to scare people into voting Republican. So it's possible that No. 6 above is false, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's true.
Given these facts, there are only a few possible conclusions.
1. Bush didn't know that North Korea was about to get nukes. Why wouldn't he know:
a. He didn't care to know: Bush's fault.
b. His intelligence agencies didn't tell him: Bad communication within in administration is the fault of the leadership. Bush's fault.
c. The intelligence agencies didn't know: He's been in office almost six years now. If the agencies fail at this point, he can't blame anyone else, since any problems from the previous administration should've been fixed by now. If the intelligence agencies don't work, he should've know that from 9/11 or Iraq. Bush's fault.
2. Bush chose a diplomatic policy that failed to work. How might it have failed?
a. He scared North Korea into building the bomb: Bush's fault.
b. His isolation of North Korea pushed them towards the bomb: Bush's fault.
c. His refusal to negotiate stopped diplomacy from solving the problem: Bush's fault.
d. His rejection of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty sent the message that nuclear weapons were okay: Bush's fault.
3. Bush chose a policy that could've worked, but didn't because he didn't have the capabilities. What possible capabilities were lacking?
a. Intelligence capabilities: See 1c above. Bush's fault.
b. Military funding (not even remotely true, but just for the sake of argument): If funding wasn't sufficient, then Bush should've pushed for more or shifted funding from other priorities. Bush's fault.
c. Troops: Bush is the sole person responsible for the fact that our troops are in a needless open-ended commitment in Iraq. If we can't go after higher priority situations, he has no one to blame. Bush's fault.
d. Ideas: His administration is filled with people who don't have original or realistic ideas and they are distracted with multiple other issues of their own creating, most notably Iraq. The president appoints those people and gives them the agenda they have to focus on. Bush's fault.
4. Bush didn't do anything to stop North Korea from getting nukes. I'm not sure this is completely true, but it's at least partially true. To the extent that it is true, it's clearly Bush's fault.
So it's pretty clear that this stuff is 100% Bush's fault. Maybe if North Korea got nukes in January (or February or March) of 2001, you could blame this on Clinton. But that's now what happened.
So what's the solution?
1. We need oversight of the executive branch. The Republicans have completely abdicated that responsibility. The only way to bring it back is to put Democrats in the majority. Then we can make sure that our intelligence agencies are working properly, that our military is doing what it should be doing and that the people in bureaucratic positions of responsibility are qualified and are doing their jobs.
2. We need to open diplomatic channels with North Korea and make sure that we are negotiating with them to eliminate the weapons they have.
3. We need to use our leverage with China. When China speaks, North Korea listens. China's economic success has a whole lot to do with the trade they have with the U.S. That fact needs to be used to get China to end North Korea's nuclear program, which is much more likely to threaten China that to threaten the U.S.
4. We need to make sure that Japan doesn't use this as an excuse to remilitarize and pursue their own nuclear weapons.
5. Sanctions need to be placed on North Korea. Nothing should get into North Korea that could possibly be used for military purposes.
6. We need to get our allies in the region to prevent any further nuclear technology or technology related to delivery systems from getting into the country. This should be done by international inspections of ships going into the country, if necessary.
7. Similarly, we need to monitor what leaves the country. North Korea should not have any chance to sell this technology to other countries. We should use our allies to make sure this doesn't happen, again, through the use of inspections and other methods.
8. We need to remove the conditions that are spurring the development of this program. If our "tough" rhetoric is the cause of this, then we need to cut it out. If North Korea thinks we are going to invade, why wouldn't they pursue nuclear weapons to defend themselves? We've made it quite clear that we will invade countries with no WMDs. And we've made it quite clear that we won't invade similar countries (read: Pakistan) that do have nuclear weapons. Again, what other logical outcome can a policy like this have than to encourage North Korea to pursue WMDs.
That being said, do I really think North Korea is a major threat? No, I still don't. Even if this was a valid test, it still doesn't mean that there are other weapons, that those weapons are usable or that North Korea has delivery systems. Or a motive. I know conservatives don't need a motive other than "they're evil," but here in the real world, that line of thought is laughable. North Korea wouldn't nuke their primary enemy -- South Korea -- because it would harm them as much, if not more, than it would harm their enemy (through fallout and such). They wouldn't nuke China because China would wipe them off the map. They wouldn't nuke Japan for a combination of the two reasons above. The wouldn't nuke the U.S. because, well, they can't nuke us. And if they tried to, they'd be wiped off the map. Who else would North Korea possibly attack? Nobody. They aren't a particularly strong threat. That being said, we still need to get a handle on this because of the potential that the technology or the know-how or the raw materials could get out to others.
I'm not sure the Bush administration can pull it off.