This sermon was going to be about Baseball, but the deadline which President Bush has imposed upon Iraq draws near. The two things that you are never supposed to discuss in mixed company are religion and politics, but as we're all fanboys here I feel safe in broaching any topic.

I'm going to date myself when I admit to remembering a time when every young boy wanted to be President. It was an important position and seemed to be the highest goal to attain in the modern civilized world. Frankly, that position would scare the hell out of me today. As I've reached adulthood, I see the constant paradoxes that the leader of our country faces. I've been asked often what my views on the impending war with Iraq are. Certainly that is too be expected. With my lofty position as a comic shop owner, it is logical that people would look to me for advice and leadership on issues of world politics. Unfortunately this is a difficult issue for which I don't have a simple answer, other than I would rather discover that Bill Jemas was a long lost brother than face the task that President Bush faces today. That he seems to relish his role scares me a bit.

After the events of September 11th, 2001, people were screaming "How could this happen? Why haven't we done something about these people? Where was our so called intelligence?" At that point, all we knew was that we no longer felt safe and wanted someone to take a proactive approach to restoring our sense of security. Now many of those same people are wondering how the President could actively lead us into conflict with another nation. If fact, much of the rest of the world seems to be condemning America for rushing too quickly into conflict. Not the entire world, of course. Many nations stand with us in our hard line stance against Iraq. However, the world is strongly divided, more so than I can remember in my lifetime. It would be foolish and naive to expect the various nations of the world to be 100% in agreement over how to handle such difficult issues as exist in the Middle East. There are so many different factors to consider and every ideology has a different solution to offer.

The justification that President Bush has offered for our stance with Iraq is relatively simple (or at least as he has presented them to the public): Among the terms that were accepted by Iraq for the ending of the Gulf War was the disarment of Iraq of any of its weapons of mass destruction. There is no question, even among the nations that are in disagreement with America, that Iraq has been, at best, slow to comply with these terms. Despite revealing evidence that U.S. Intelligence has gathered that Iraq is still hiding chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons, many nations refused to concede that it was time to take actions against Iraq. France and Germany have been particularly vocal in opposition to America's promise of force. There was enough resistance that our government has decided to forego seeking authorization of its' action with the Security Council of The U.N.

It is a different world now than it was in the 1930's. Still, some parallels can be drawn between our situation and that of the world that faced Germany's policy of rampant expansion in Europe. In that instance diplomatic maneuvering simply allowed Hitler the time he needed to build his military might. By the time the world finally agreed that Germany's threat was real, it was too late and the entire world was involved in a devastating war. So Bush has taken on the difficult and unpopular task of proactively going into conflict with a nation that is seen as a threat to the American people. Without the approval of the U.N., Bush can be seen as a bully that is forcing U.S. interest on the rest of the world with little regard to the only institution in place to mediate international disputes. If the war is quick and weapons of mass destruction are located in Iraq, the he will likely be vindicated. It is more likely that the outcome will be less staightforward.

The U.S. found itself in a politically impossible situation. With several nations planning to use their veto power in the U.N. Security Council, the choice was to bypass that organization or stand down and wait for Hussein to do something dramatic enough to finally make even the resistant nations agree to action. Frankly, that was unlikely to happen. Hussein would not still be in power if he was foolish enough to give the entire world clear reason to take action against him. He knows that his only successful course is through covert action and subterfuge. He simply can't take on the power of America directly. Without an action from him, President Bush has chosen the former option and bypassed the Security Council. This disturbs me, as it takes a big step toward stripping the U.N. of its clout in solving international disputes. Now that the deed is done, we can only hope that the military action is quick and successful, and that Iraq does us the favor of being clearly in possession of horrible weapons.

As much as I would like to have waited until the entire world supported action against Iraq, I have to admit that was not going to happen. These nations agree that Hussein is a dangerous man, they simply don't feel that he has gone far enough to warrant military action against him. I would have preferred such a unified world in support of America, but adult life has taught me that seldom is the case. Sometimes you have to take action that will not be popular with some people. President Bush is taking that action. History will decide if he is right. Perhaps the last the final naiveté that remains from my youth is a belief that ultimately right will win out. Not necessarily immediately or even soon, but eventually the correct path will be the one that is successful. History will decide if he has rid the world of a great threat or mearly invited even more distrust and hostility toward America.

And now I get to be even more thankfull every day that I don't have his job.