For reasons I don’t quite understand the Left has adopted the view that elections in Iraq should be delayed until the “security situation” improves. On Fox earlier today, Ralph Peters pointed out to Ellen Ratner that to allow terrorists to set the schedule for democracy not only would be a mistake – it also, obviously, would provide an incentive for more suicide bombings, to keep the “security situation” from improving, to prevent elections from occurring.

And what would be the ramifications were we to establish the precedent that elections will be delayed whenever someone threatens violence against voters? Is it not possible that violent minorities in other countries – even these United States – might decide they’d rather an election not go forward? And might they not then threaten those who go to the polls? Would the Left say, in such an instance, that we too should delay elections until such time as the “security situation” could be improved?