North Korea conducted what appears to be a successful nuclear weapons test, and Kim Jong Il has threatened to fire off a nuclear missile -- though it's not clear he has that capability -- if the US doesn't accede to his demand for one-on-one talks.

Iran is on the verge of building its own nuclear weapon, and got away with conducting a proxy war against Israel in Lebanon earlier this year using the terrorist group Hizballah as cover. You can bet the mullahs are watching our response to the North Korean test and threats very carefully.

In Iraq, our troops are helping the people build a representative government from the ground up, despite the best Iran as well as al-Qaeda can throw at them. A captured letter sent by al-Qaeda leadership (what's left of it) to al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before his death revealed that al-Qaeda is in a "stage of weakness, and a state of paucity." The same letter warned that violence aimed at Iraqi civilians (especially that directed against Sunni leaders) is "undermining al-Qa`ida's ability to win the 'hearts of the people'." The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, meanwhile, showed that Iraq is the linchpin in the War on Terror. Whoever ends up losing the fight in Iraq -- whether us or the terrorists -- will be severely damaged.

With all that to think about, what do Democrats and the media want to focus on as mid-term elections approach? Former Congressman Mark Foley.

Those on the Right are trying to deal with North Korea and Iran while fighting a global war against terrorists and those who support them. Those on the Left just want to talk about a witch-hunt against any Republican who heard that Foley was sending suggestive emails to former male pages over the age of consent, yet didn't kick him off Capitol Hill for being gay. Meanwhile, the Democrats bill themselves as the party of "tolerance" concerning "alternate lifestyles."

As difficult as it is to believe, there are more important events taking place in the world than a manufactured sex scandal in which no illicit sex even occurred.

The only contribution made by Democrats to the discussions on North Korea and Iran so far is to blame President Bush for upsetting the delicate state of ignorant bliss in which we lived during the 1990's. Oddly enough, the party that still complains about the perceived lack of a multilateral approach to Iraq insists that a unilateral solution is necessary for North Korea.

Bush is under attack for "allowing" the North Koreans to work on nuclear weapons, as though they began doing so only recently. The 1994 "Agreed Framework" called for North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons development in exchange for two light-water nuclear reactors. North Korea almost immediately violated that agreement by continuing to work on nuclear weapons anyway.

Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and instructions for building a nuclear weapon in 1997. In 1998, North Korea launched a multi-stage missile over Japan. In 1999, a Congressional report concluded that "North Korea's WMD programs pose a major threat to the United States and its allies," and stated that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East" than five years previously. Anyone who pretends that  North Korea was "contained" before President Bush took office is simply not serious about dealing with the danger posed by that country.

Yet that seems to be the Democratic party line concerning North Korea.

In 2003, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile." Pelosi will become Speaker of the House should the Democrats win in November. If her party had had their way, we would not have even the the limited missile defense capabilities we have today.

In response to the North Korean nuclear test, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), whose husband signed the Agreed Framework and then did nothing while North Korea violated it repeatedly, blamed "the failed policies of the Bush Administration." Senator Clinton is a likely Democratic candidate for President in 2008.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who was responsible for negotiating the 1994 Agreed Framework, opined in the New York Times that the agreement worked, despite its obvious failure. Carter claimed that President Bush is entirely to blame for North Korea "resuming" its quest for nuclear weapons -- and that they had good reason to do so.

"But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks," Carter wrote. "In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices."

Are these the sort of people who should be in charge of our government given the obvious dangers we face today? Is Nancy Pelosi the right person to back up President Bush as he faces down a nuclear-armed North Korea? Is Hillary Clinton the right person to take on a nuclear-armed Iran? Is the party which has consistently voted against every measure used to fight terrorism -- from information sharing among intelligence agencies to listening in on phone calls with known terrorists --  the people who should run our government for the next two critical years? Are the people who overwhelmingly favored granting Constitutional rights and Geneva Conventions protections to mass-murdering terrorist thugs the right people to lead us during a time of war? For that matter, should we put those who don't even believe we're at war in charge of fighting it?

As imperfect as the Republicans are, at least they're serious about dealing with the likes of Kim Jong Il, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and terrorist leaders. A Democratic Congress would concentrate on manufactured scandals, staged impeachment trials and tax hikes, while going back to what even Senator John McCain (R-AZ) called a "carrots-and-no-sticks policy" regarding our enemies. 

As tempting as it is to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by letting them lose control of Congress in the 2006 election, I'm not sure the country can afford the price of tuition right now.