There are a lot of people all of a sudden who are counseling delay in liberating Iraq. Among them are some Americans who answer public opinion polls, some “allies” in France and Germany, and some of the liberal opinion elite. All of this puts us in mind of the remarks made on October 10, 2002, by the two senators from New York, explaining their votes authorizing President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein. Said Senator Schumer: “In the post 9/11 world, inaction is not an option: at some point, Hussein must be de-fanged.… Certainly action — any type of action — poses real danger and must be taken with great caution and concern. But sometimes doing nothing is riskier than acting. This is one of those moments.” Said Senator Clinton: “I come to this decision from the perspective of a senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am.” Mrs. Clinton went on to say that her vote “says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.” Well, the “last chance” was now three-and-a-half months ago, and no one would claim that Saddam has been disarmed. We cite Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton, both Democrats, not because we regard them as any particular authorities on matters of national security. They are not. But they are New Yorkers — even Mrs. Clinton, for all her Illinois and Arkansas and Washington background, in some sense. And they have therefore, like us, been through, as Mrs. Clinton put it, the fires of hell. So they understand the risk of inaction.