You know why I'm voting for George Bush? Because the left is morally wrong about war in the Middle East. The best example is today's sickening NY Times Editorial on Iran.

Indispensable Allies on Iran

They argue about the danger of Iran's having nuclear weapons, but don't go out of their way to explain why. Iran's ruling mullahs are justifiably unpopular. That is the full extent of their claims against Iran. What right do we have to demand that Iran abandon it's nuclear efforts just because their leadership is unpopular? None.

There is no mention of the oppression of women, political opponents or support for Hizbollah - and who knows how many other terrorist organizations - and their constant declarations that we and our allies are enemies to be defeated.

Lets' assume that the Times readership knows all this which is why the editorial board is against Iran's development of nuclear weapons. How do they propose we stop them from attaining nuclear capacity? "Tough-minded negotiations" based on international agency "analyses" using "European diplomacy". These words are emptier than the Judaica section at the Tehran Barnes & Noble (except for those dog-eared copies of "Protocols" and "Mein Kampf").

What they really mean to say is that it is OK for us to be blackmailed - perpetually negotiating to give Iran some substantial physical benefit in exchange for a promise not to develop, dare we use the term, WMDS. Even assuming that the Iranians keep their initial promises, when does the price become too large?

Late last month it resumed building the centrifuges needed for such enrichment, ending a construction freeze it had agreed to earlier this year with Britain, France and Germany.

No doubt after the allies already paid them whatever it is they were asking in return for compliance.

Oh, but luckily the Times does propose that "action" be taken after "some time". If there's one thing they teach you in the world of business it's that in order to achieve anything you have to have a goal that is specific and measurable. Taking unspecified action after an undetermined amount of time is neither, and by definition cannot yield any results.

To get back to my original point, I believe it is not morally correct to protect some people's lives today at the expense of ignoring the suffering of millions at the hands of an enemy who has openly called for your destruction.

Also read A Triumph for Soft Power which explains exactly how ridiculous the Times' position is.

And if you don't like the WMD argument, or the argument that imposing democracy is worth the short-term cost, you may want to learn why the Iran's mullahs are unpopular.

“Like the Dead in Their Coffins”Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran

So go ahead, whistle your happy tune and fill up your SUVs. And hope that the next 9/11 doesn't happen to you. But don't worry, France and Germany have your best interests at heart. Just ask John Kerry.

A short list of Iranian sponsored attacks against the U.S. and Jewish interests:

Iran Hostage Crisis
Bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut
A.M.I.A. Bombing - Argentina
And the Israeli Embassy there too

Coming soon to an American street-corner near you. If we don't act soon. None of these attacks were "expected".

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that Iran is supplying our enemies in Iraq. The link is to a left-wing site that of course blames us for Iranian involvement. I mean, after we went in to Iraq they just couldn't help themselves! This type of support used to be a causus belli in and of itself.