While it’s clear that Dubya & Co. are disingenuous about allowing the U.N. inspections process to work (“We’ve got evidence, you just can’t see it,” they say), we shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that a search that doesn’t turn up anything in Iraq will keep the dogs of war at bay.

Dubya never wanted inspections, doubts they’ll work, and claims to have evidence of at least attempts to accumulate or build weapons of mass destruction. That might be a bluff, but Dubya seems pretty damn convinced that Saddam’s up to no good. I doubt that’s all wishful thinking on his part. And it doesn’t matter, since it seems so many politicians, pundits and the public at large seems willing to accept Dubya’s word that he’s got the goods on Saddam.

In which case, the inspections process has been a waste of time. Yeah, if it turns out there’s no smoking gun it hurts Dubya’s cause a little bit, but all along the administration has asked Iraq to prove a negative. Just because we can’t find the weapons doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Which brings us full circle to the original question: Is Saddam a threat? Moreover, is he the primary threat to U.S. national security? The debate needs to be shifted away from this hocus-pocus inspections game to some contemplation over how well containment has worked, how well deterrence has worked, and perhaps most effective rhetorically, how much we are still at risk from Islamic extremist terrorists around the globe who are still hell-bent on killing as many Americans as they can.

The U.N. inspections are a sideshow. Nothing that results from them will keep us out of war. Also posted to Stand Down.