not to decide is to decide

The Washington Post continues to surprise, in its climb from the pit of the leftocracy. Today's lead editorial gets close to what should happen with respect to Iraq's alleged documentation of its WMD status. To paraphrase the key points:

• Iraq will declare it has no weapons of mass destruction

• The U.S. and the U.K. know this to be a "blatant lie", and should provide evidence to back this assertion

• Now here's where the Post comes a cropper: "The United States must immediately return to the Security Council, demonstrate the falsity of Iraq's declaration and insist that action be taken".

• They conclude, however, with this righteous truth: "Unless there is a clear and dramatic reversal by the dictator this weekend, and the weapons are disclosed, the time will have arrived for Mr. Bush to follow his words with actions".

Where the editorial goes wrong is in its sequencing of events and its implication that the United States must do a "mother may I" before our multinational keeper, the Security Council. What we, in concert with Britain and any other nation worthy of the name who would join us in this quest must do, are two things.

First, provide our evidence of Iraq's material breach to the Security Council. Second, simultaneously, announce, to Iraq, and the Security Council, that unless Iraq comes clean, opens its borders to our troops to accompany our inspectors, and forces Saddam and his retinue into exile, then we will let slip the dogs of war. And we give a precise date and time, preferably before the middle of January 2003, when hostilities will commence.

Who dares wins. Who asks for UN permission rots while awaiting a decision.