Just What Are They Advocating?

Today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal provides yet another example of why the media should stick to reporting the facts rather than offering opinions. Writing on the recent discovery of Iranian nuclear purchases by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, the vaunted editorial board of the Wall Street Journal advises the nation:
 
"All this should put to rest any doubts about the Iranian regime's purposes and determination. As for what the U.S. should do about it, the committee report insists that "direct engagement" must be a part of American strategy, and so it seems fated to be under the Obama Administration. The least it can do is heed Mr. Morgenthau's central point about everything he's learned about Iran's nuclear progress: "It's late in the game, and we don't have a lot of time."
 
Could someone explain to me just what that means? What is the Iranian purpose? And what is this about some game and time?
 
Perhaps what the Wall Street Journal meant to say is that these purchases demonstrate that the Iranian regime is attempting to build a nuclear device/weapon for the purpose of using it against Israel. Or perhaps what they meant to say was these purchases demonstrate that the Iranian regime is attempting to build a nuclear device/weapon for purely defensive reasons. Unfortunately, we're left to guess (I'll take the former).
 
And then there's the part about what we should do about it. You would think that a newspaper with a readership of millions of people that decides to delve into an issue such as this might, at some point, offer a complete analysis of the problem that we face. After all, if they are advising that the U.S. attack Iran, thousands of innocent lives (American and Iranian) might be at stake. Yet the Wall Street Journal in editorial after editorial on the issue seems more content to gloss over that thorny subject. I don't blame them, no one likes to talk about consequences, especially when those consequences involve family members dying for their country.
 
Now I realize that facts have never, ever, stood in the way of a really good idea, but perhaps the readership should. I must confess that for the most part, I find the WSJ to be an excellent paper ... especially when it comes to its financial reporting. However, columns like this one demonstrate why the business of war and peace should not be left to amateurs. If the Wall Street Journal can't add a degree of intellectual honesty to their editorials on foreign and defense policy, then I don't think it's worth my time (or yours for that matter) to read them.
 
The views contained in this post are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of current or previous employers.