Hilarious. Take the word of a psycho dictator and use it as proof of how a rational person would respond.... yeah buddy...
OK, now you're just being dishonest in your attempt to win a debate, unless for you history stopped in 1991. Iraq in 2002 couldn't threaten much of anybody. Hence your analogy falls apart like a Yugo during a demolition derby. Bush attacked and conquered a nation that wasn't a threat to us or anyone else and cynically lied his ass off to do so, partly to grab or at least indirectly control crucial natural resources, partly to distract from a godawful domestic agenda, and, more disturbingly, partly to settle a personal family score. You bet your ass everyone else out there is saying to themselves "Damn, I gotsta get me some protection!" They'd either be idiots or insane if they didn't at least think that, even if many of them can't act on it. As wacky as they are, the NKs just stated the obvious out loud where everyone could hear it.
My disagreement is that you cited it as fact that "Bush has made us all even more insecure than we were before." If there was clear evidence of that, I would say fine. But there isn't, and all you have to back up the statement is a theory. Color me unconvinced.
I don't recall Bush ever saying that we will attack any regime armed with WMD. As you noted, Bush did say "We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.' I would suggest you take a look at this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/psi.htm As for not letting the "world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" I imagine the Bush Administration would argue that that is being done on a diplomatic track. Most notably with the Libya deal, Iran's agreement to open its nuke facilities up to inspection to prove that it is not working on nuclear weapons, and the current multilateral diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Now, whether those are effective means of ensuring Iran and NK can't threaten us with WMD is debatable, but I would be surprised if a liberal such as yourself is going to fault Bush for a policy of multilateral engagement with both countries.
Is the world safer after invasion of Iraq? Ask yourself this question. "No" is the answer if you have been paying attention to the world affairs lately. The invasion tells the whole world - might is right, hell with reason, hell with common sense. It tells the world that force is everything. Apparently the president wasn't good in history.