Under the Kerry-Edwards approach, then, inspectors would have reached the conclusion that Saddam had no WMD. At that point, the inspectors would have left and the sanctions against Saddam likely would have been lifted. The U.S. would have been humiliated, and any chance of leading a coalition against Saddam would have evaporated. Saddam, of course, would have remained in power and in a stronger position than before. Thus, Kerry's claim that we would have achieved his preference for removing Saddam is obviously false.

Worse, Saddam almost surely would have been emboldened by his success to produce WMD. That is the essence of what Charles A. Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony yesterday, as reported by The Washington Times. It is also consistent with what we know about Saddam. And we know that Saddam had been in contact with al-Qaeda and that major terrorist figures were present in Iraq.

In short, the world's terrorists would be well-situated to obtain WMD from the state most likely to supply them, and we would be significantly less safe than we are today. And we will be significantly less safe if security weasels Kerry and Edwards are elected to lead this country.