Wayne Allard: “I wish to quote a few passages from the editorial: Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, what's the…”

“I wish to quote a few passages from the editorial: Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, what's the point? It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step ahead of the United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall tactics. Later in the editorial it states: President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly laughed off its rules. It was a big step toward building a much-needed world consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting U.S. Security Council approval requires us to work under old rules, such as those where palaces are off limits, the world, and those three countries (France, China, and Russia), must know the United States will act without them. The U.N. can't fall for Saddam's old tricks. I hope the United Nations Security Council will devise a new tough resolution which will demand 'unconditional and unfettered' access to all sites. I do not want to have to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. However, I also will not allow the United Nations or any permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, to control our national security policy. And that is why I support this resolution. S.J. Res 46 does not advocate force, but it does not preclude it. It uses force as the last resort, the very last.”