Another reason to be glad Bush won

A dramatic Times of London article on North Korea's crumbling totalitarian regime has been making its way around the blogosphere. The whole thing is a must-read, but the following passage seems not to have drawn much attention:

Bush’s re-election dealt a blow to Kim, 62, who had gambled on a win by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate. Kim used a strategy of divide and delay to drag out nuclear talks with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea through 2004.

Kim lost his bet and now faces four more years of Bush, who says that he “loathes” the North Korean leader and has vowed to strip him of atomic weapons.

True, Kim's support for Kerry was first reported back in early March 2004 -- sample stories are here, here, and here.

A few days later, Kerry, displaying the lack of political acumen that cost him the election, began boasting about his support from foreign leaders, although he refused to name any of them.

It gradually dawned on Kerry that positioning himself as the choice of America's enemies was not a winning campaign strategy. In a textbook flip-flop, he said he would not "seek or accept" foreign endorsements, and the story faded away.

Now, as we celebrate the dawn of democracy in Iraq, Kerry's position on North Korea -- and on promoting freedom around the world -- is worth remembering.

If Kim's regime collapses in the next four years, it will be, at least in part, because John F. Kerry is not our president.

FOLLOW-UP:
In fact, plenty of other people picked up on the Kerry angle to the Times report.

The excellent North Korea Zone offers perhaps the most detailed analysis of the complete article, including the Kerry/Bush factor.

Airborne Combat Engineer, Pink Monkeybird, and commenters here and here on this Little Green Footballs post also weighed in.

The blogosphere -- there's no denying its power!