The American Spectator

br> Edina, MN /p>

For months we have been watching the impasse between the supporters of the Bush administration and the adherents of the pacifist doctrine who shrink from the use of force against the Iraq regime. The calls for action are generally founded on rational arguments while the arguments for delay are rather based on fear and squeamishness to commit violence under any circumstances. It is time for the proponents of endless inspections to face a series of questions to justify their position:

Question 1: In Iraq there is a set of 100 inspectors armed with Toyota vans trying to find forbidden arms in a very large country. Immediately outside Iraq a U.S. Army is ready to invade. Would the inspectors be there at all and able to do anything useful without the presence of the threatening army?

Question 2: If the U.S. Army were to come home without toppling Sadism, would the inspection regime continue with any useful effect?

Question 3: If the violent removal of Iraq arms is called off and the U.S. Army leaves the region how difficult will it be in the future to reconstitute a similar force should some state, anywhere on the globe, sponsor or harbor a terrorist force? For instance, in eight years from now with a Democratic president would we have the national resolve to face down such a threat?

p>The proponents of inaction must find answers to these questions if they are to face their consciences in coming years. br> — Basil Weir br> San Jose, CA /p> p> THE CAT BOMB br> Re: Jed Babbin’s Not ‘N Synch