It won't work blaming Bush for talking to long to North Korea or Iran, since it was the democrats who demanded talking instead of military action. And they can't have it both ways with the American voter. They said we should have talked to Iraq instead of using miliary action, and say we should use military action against Iran and North Korea instead of talking. Can't have it both ways. Talking did no good with Iraq for over a decade and 18 UN resolutions, and it will be that much of a dismal failure with Iran and North Korea. In the end, military action is the only real way to deal with those kinds of despots with nuclear weapons programs. They like to talk because to them, talk gives them time to finish their programs. And like in North Korea, they have nukes now because the liberals insisted Bush talk to them. Iraq definitely doesn't have nukes because Bush did it his way. The liberal way just doesn't work. Multi-lateral talks and negotiations with people like that is just a more diplomatic way of saying "wait and see". And if history has taught us anything, it's that "wait and see"ers will get you had every time. I refer to those before Pearl Harbor who predicted that attack, and went ignored, and in the case of General Mitchell, was run out of the Army because he so strongly pushed the idea of a Pearl Harbor attack, after a simulated attack against the Panama Canal using the Langly and old bi-planes.
"It won't work blaming Bush for talking to long to North Korea or Iran"
If Iran gets the bomb, no American will want to blame Bush when it's proven Iran has it, because Americans will be too heartbroken at the loss of one of our cities. I bet Neville Chamberlain was approached by his countrymen not with scorn but sadness. The same will happen to Bush if Iran uses a nuke on us near 2008. Though I'm sure this has already been considered, in 2008, if there is a nuke smuggled into a large city in a key state on election day, what result? Bush cannot then pull an FDR and play the soldier-statesman--he will have served his term. I wonder if this is not an idea the Iranians already have in mind. Nobody will be looking to blame Bush if that happens--but there will certainly be no doubt who bears the responsibility for not stopping the Iranians militarily.
As for North Korea, they already have nukes. Nobody's blaming Bush for that mess--that bomb was awarded by Clinton's appeasement. All Bush can do is talk, nuke, or invade, and nuking/invading Korea is a nightmare America isn't ready for.
But Bush knows Iranians are working on nukes, knows they will use `em on Israel, the U.S., or both, and could at the very least use his bully pulpit to insist upon America doing something to stop it. He is not. Going to the Congress and demanding the ability to nuke Iran preemptively is a crucial first step he doesn't seem to have taken. America would be perfectly able to accept a glow-in-the-dark Iran. Their government has hated us and stirred up unrest worldwide, representing the worst of Islam, since the Carter era. We'd all be happy to see them gone.