Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog reveals a riptide of conflicts over the upcoming presidential election. Many have derided the largely conservative Mr. Sullivan for becoming weak before our odious adversaries at the fateful hour of the election. His public irreconcilability between two deficient candidates presents a prescient portrait of internal conflictions within many people who want to promote a progressive, tolerant world without feeding the Zarqawian head-eating monsters seeking its end. It is a tribute to Mr. Sullivan that he presents his struggle publicly, where so many satisfy themselves with assured positions. Heel-digging has its merits in the face of tyranny, but comes with the risk that the entire mountain of reason might collapse beneath you.

Today, Mr. Sullivan points out that American forces in Iraq failed to secure equipment and facilities that collectively can be used to create WMDs---Missing Iraqi Nuke Material:

Here's a report that sends chills down my spine:

Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

Where has the stuff gone? Why was it left unguarded? Another money quote:

The United States also has not publicly commented on earlier U.N. inspectors' reports disclosing the dismantling of a range of key weapons-making sites, raising the question of whether it was unable to monitor the sites. In the absence of any U.S. or Iraqi accounting, council diplomats said the satellite images could mean the gear had been moved to new sites inside Iraq or stolen. If stolen, it could end up in the hands of a government or terrorist group seeking nuclear weapons.

"We simply don't know, although we are trying to get the information," said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the report.

It's about time they did, don't you think?

A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991. ElBaradei, whose agency dismantled Iraq's nuclear arms program over a decade ago, drew similar conclusions to the Duelfer report well before the March 2003 invasion.

The article seems slanted towards the opinion that inspections alone will ensure that the bad stuff stays secure and watched. It underscores how the invasion was unnecessary, and undermined the job of the IAEA to safeguard the WMD materials in question. Meanwhile, next door in Iran, and further away in North Korea, the work of the IAEA has delivered poor results with each nation on the verge of being nuclear powers. Inspections without the threat of force did little to contain the production of WMDs. It is also interesting to note that the anti-war position stipulating that the invasion was unnecessary due to lack of WMDs is refuted in the article, since now related materiel is going missing, according to the IAEA themselves. So there were WMD programs in Iraq after all?

The attributed Duelfer report mentioned in the article provides much egg for all faces in the debate. It underscores how the French were supplying Saddam's forces right up to the invasion; surely, some Americans died from French hardware in the bargain. No, France was never going to be for invasion, nor the UN who was raking in Oil For Food petrodollars. Nor the EU, under the spell of France. Cooperation and goodwill from erstwhile allies might have secured WMD sites in Iraq --- there's plenty of blame to go around for Western intransigence.

The Duelfer report underscores failure from all sides: inspections guarantee nothing, nor does invasion.

So, like Mr. Sullivan, this blogger finds himself on a flimsy rope bridge swaying in the winds of a chasm created by two flawed popular positions for defending the Western world. It may be that our system really has met its match this time, because the enemy is not a system at all. It's empowered anarchy, welling up from within and without. It challenges who we are, fundamentally.

This blogger has stated that he's voting for Bush but rooting for Kerry. That's a vote cast from the rope bridge, the logic of which could be inverted. As the chasm widens, this little bridge seems more fragile every day. How many people actually occupy this space? How many feel like the choices presented just don't fill the bill? There's emotional solid ground on each side of this bridge. It would be quite tidy to simply take one or the other position and receive pats on the back from either Democrats or Republicans. In this position, if either of the two cliffs representing the West gives way, so does this little bridge. The world will not be saved by either conservatives or liberals. It will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides. It will be saved by reducing the gap that this little bridge must span. Is this remotely possible?

If there's solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been. This time around, a liberal president will not have the political advantages afforded by the power vacuum at the end of the Cold War, concurrent with a miracle tech economy that kept eyes planted on the NASDAQ and not the Cole disaster. This time, a liberal president has the unenviable job of showing that the French can be reformed, that the UN is not utterly dysfunctional and that Carterism has workable limits. Let the sobering begin.

President Bush, who ran on a near-isolationist platform in 2000, redefined conservatism in 2001 because the world changed. That's why he's got my vote. Mr. Kerry, so far, seems reluctant to redefine liberalism in the context of the modern world. His heels are firmly planted on a mountain floating on magma. As President, liberalism, as we know it, will either be redefined or it will perish.

Four more years of Bush will only prolong liberalism's promenade with fantasy; four years of Kerry will either return a functional balance within our system or consummate its disequilibrium, at the risk of chaos. It is a vote of fate.