You have to hand it to the New York Times. In the space of two paragraphs it can juggle a contradiction unbeknowst to its own writer. So, on the occasion of North Korea's readmission of nuclear weapons inspectators back into the country, come these juxtaposed statements: 

Though critical and long-awaited, the reactor shutdown may also be the easiest achievement. It essentially restores the status quo that existed in 2002 — except that now North Korea is believed to have enough plutonium fuel for eight or more weapons, in addition to the one or two it is believed to have manufactured when Mr. Bush’s father was in office.

The challenge now, which experts believe will be far more difficult, is to convince North Korea to reveal and disgorge its arsenal. Almost all of that was produced starting in 2003, while the United States was distracted by the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Now, the Bush administration has accomplished with its tentative agreement little more than Madeleine Albright did, even as she blithely ignored the totalitarian hell of the regime with which she negotiated. But how can it be said that Kim Jong-il was manufacuring nuclear weapons during the first Bush administration and all the through the Clinton and second Bush administrations when it is then asserted that he managed to get away with making the bulk of his arsenal while the U.S. was "distracted by the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath"?  Was the U.S. distracted by the first Gulf War, intervention in Haiti and the Balkans (Rwanda can't have occupied too much of our attention), and then Afghanistan to stop North Korea when it first began violating international law?