GOPers Waking Up on North Korean Nukes?

Re: "Nukes for Benefits," National Review's James Robbins answer my question:

the new draft accord sounds uncomfortably like the 1994 Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton administration. At the time is was heralded as a great step forward for peace and nonproliferation, but in practice the agreement provided the cover for the North Korans to pursue their current nuclear programs. When North Korean violations were uncovered in 2002, a crisis developed that led Pyongyang to expel the IAEA inspectors, begin openly converting spent fuel rods into weapons-grade material, and start claiming to have an existing nuclear-weapons capability.

It took awhile even to get the North Koreans to the bargaining table, and there were several years of false starts after they did. So after all that effort we seem to have come full circle back to the Agreed Framework. Proponents of the new agreement disagree, and note that the Clinton-era document mandated that North Korea "freeze" its weapons program, while the new draft accord calls for "dismantling." Of course, in 1994 there were no nuclear weapons to dismantle so that is not much of a distinction.

Or, if you prefer the shorter version of even that snippet ... there is absolutely no - none, zero, nada - difference between what the Bush Adminstration and the Clinton Administration have done in regards to North Korea.

<snark>Who would have guessed that all the carping critics of Clintonism really haven't had a clue as to what they were complaining about all that time?</snark>