I hate to agree with a New York Times editorial, but they're right in this one. They just miss the real point - why can't the U.S. go beyond the promise to not overthrow North Korea and Iran if they discard their nuclear programs and Iran stops supporting terror. What the President should say is that we won't invade any country that doesn't present a clear threat to our safety and security or a similar threat to humanity as a whole, but that we will feel free to continue (or rather start) openly and honestly decrying the abuses of human and political rights that take place in countries like Iran and North Korea (and China and many African countries).
Why can't we speak out (with what moral authority we have left/can recover) against dictatorships and human rights abusers everywhere without invading everyone willy-nilly with no consideration of what's actually in our national interest. Action - and war - should be the thing we turn to when our country is gravely and immediately threatened by another. It is neither possible nor realistic to invade every country that is "bad." But nothing should stop us from constant, honest, and straightforward criticism of other countries based on our understanding of what we believe to be universal moral imperatives for freedom, democracy, and respect for individual human dignity.
