In a recent press conference, when asked about his response to North Korea, President Bush mumbled, " ... diplomacy ... threatening language, ... all players playing the same cards" (whatever that means).

When asked why he did not take the "diplomacy ... threatening language" approach with Iraq, he responded, "Because I would consider that to be 'cut and run,' and we will not cut and run."

What? We would not be in a position to cut and run had we not invaded on the invented possibility of WMDs in the first place. Now North Korea is blatantly testing WMDs and daring the world to respond, to which Bush shrugs, "(insert threatening word)."

Never before has it been so obvious that our invasion of Iraq was so completely unwarranted as it is now, with our diplomatic approach to North Korea.

Please understand, I am not suggesting war with North Korea -- if for no other reason than our depleted military resources. However, does the completely opposite approach to such an obvious threat not make the approach to Iraq, at best, highly suspect?

The more I hear, the more I am convinced that G.W. has not so slowly but surely gone daft. How can he contradict himself over and over? Have the people around him gone over the edge?

Has the entire administration slipped into the same pit? Methinks that is most certainly the case!

Gayle Baecht

West End