President Bush’s now famous phrase, Axis of Evil, is being turned around and tilted against him by his political foes and anti-war critics. The precipitating cause is the recent admission by North Korea that it has, indeed, been fostering its nuclear weapons program in direct violation of its agreement with the United States. That agreement was brokered by Jimmy Carter, under the direction of then-president Clinton. Under that agreement, the United States gave billions in oil and equipment to North Korea in exchange for North Korea’s promise to cease and desist in the furtherance of its nuclear program.

Bush’s opposition attempts to make several points from the North Korean’s conduct. First, they say, the President is applying a double standard against evil dictatorships in that he intends to force a regime change in Iraq but has not set that standard in dealing with the Koreans. Next, the arguments run, the Koreans have weapons of mass destruction whereas the Iraqis do not. Yet Bush says Iraq is an imminent threat to the security of the United States whereas he does not make that allegation against North Korea. Lastly, it is said that because North Korea possesses the “Bomb”, it is, in fact, a present danger. Therefore, Iraq can be put on hold until we resolve the Korean issues.

In fact, if these arguments are examined critically, they are specious. Moreover, they are purely political when posited by democrat politicians and clearly ideological when employed by the anti-war crowd. The camps overlap in large measure, as the ideologues of the left are essentially democrat apparatchiks. This does not stop the liberal media from endlessly and mindlessly repeating these new mantras. Anything being better than nothing and, not having a substantive argument, the use of whatever is available becomes the default position.

It is clearly true that the President is using separate standards. So what? Where is it writ that the same standards need be applied to different fact patterns. It is also true that the facts are different. The glaring difference is that the Koreans have some kind of nuclear device. They also have some form of delivery system as evidenced by their rocket overflight of Japan last year. There is, however, a separate rationale for differing treatment. North Korea is not a country which can threaten the United States in any serious way; Iraq can and does. That threat is oil.

There are no oil wells in North Korea and none in the surrounding region. None in Japan, South Korea, China or that part of Russia bordering North Korea. In Iraq, there are immense amounts of oil, readily available, and, in the surrounding countries, there is even more. And, unless you’re one of those ostrich wackos who puts his head in the sand so as not to see the obvious, the Western world runs on Middle Eastern oil and we are not about to be held hostage because of it. Period. Were there no oil in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, the United States would be as concerned with Iraq’s nukes as we are about India’s or Pakistan’s. We might not like it very much, but we would not be going to war over it. That, Dear Reader, is why there is a “double standard”.

In fact, North Korea is not even our problem. After the matter cools a bit, our 37,000 troops will come home, finally, after 50 years. As a country, North Korea is a disaster. It cannot feed itself, hence it cannot sustain itself. North Korea is a goner and, while it may have a bomb or two, it poses no threat to us. Truth be told, we need do little, if anything, vis-a-vis North Korea. Leave it alone. Let its neighbors remonstrate and resolve whatever problems each might have with this soon to be dead country. Let the South Koreans, the Japanese and China clean up the leftovers of the North.

So, this whole “axis of evil” business is, in truth, about oil. Why Bush included North Korea is a mystery. It is no more evil than African dictators, Castro or others throughout the world. Though it’s about oil, it is not about oil profits despite those who carp that oil’s profits are what move Bush & Company. It is simply that America without heat, power or gasoline is unimaginable. No political party, not even Ralph Nader’s Greens, could or would allow that to happen. Since the same people who want us to leave Hussein in control refuse to consider nuclear power as a replacement for Middle Eastern oil, perforce, we must guarantee a steady supply of Middle Eastern oil. And don’t forget, there are no oil wells in Europe either. The reason for France’s love affair with the Arabs is that France needs oil; it doesn’t need whatever Israel can export to it. Thus does France play up to Hussein and the Saudis while playing down to the Israelis.

 The political game is mirrors. Little is publicly said which is privately thought. That is one very big reason the American public likes Mr. Bush. The public believes that the President speaks truthfully. He does and he doesn’t. He is more likely to fail to tell the whole truth rather than to actually tell an untruth. The President is as politically disingenuous as he needs to be. Thus he says Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States. It is, but not because of its prospective nuclear capability. It is because if it acquires that capability, it can and will blackmail surrounding oil nations so as to control andd severely diminish the wealth of the West, distributing more of it toward the Middle East. That’s threat enough, and imminent too.

Add to that what a nuclear Hussein could do in addition to using oil as a weapon. Sell off some technology to Osama and his thugs; to Hezbollah; threaten to wipe out much of Israel or Turkey. The dictator’s warped mind must truly boggle at his options. It’s similar to an American fantasizing about winning the Lottery, finally, after all these years. So, while it is true that the President believes liberating the Iraqi people is a good thing for the United States to do, it is not the reason for regime change; it is a reason. We are not going to even try to change the North Korean regime or any other regime in any other country. As for the President’s other reasons, how did you get to work this morning?