Isn't it ironic that liberals seem to resent conservatives for promoting moral issues and being judgmental when every ounce of their leftist fiber bristles with an air of moral superiority?

It's a turf thing, a matter of entitlement. Liberals are truly annoyed that large segments of the population vote Republican primarily because of social issues, when for decades the "progressives" have claimed to have a monopoly on morality and compassion.

Ever since I've been discussing politics -- as far back as the late Sixties and early Seventies -- I remember smug liberals looking down on conservatives for their lack of compassion, their bigotry, their fidelity to evil corporations and their delusional paranoia about Communism. In their minds our differences were never the result of an honest disagreement, but selfishness, greed and backwardness.

Very little has changed on that score during the last 35 years on the liberal side except that their arrogance has inflated into a vainglorious self-satisfaction, insulated by a staggering close-mindedness as to what motivates their "malevolent" political opponents.

As a little experiment I opened the New York Times editorial page Wednesday morning to see if I could readily find evidence for my assertion. To my sheer absence of surprise, one unsigned editorial lambasted the Bush administration and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the shortage of armored vehicles for our soldiers in Iraq.

Though Mr. Rumsfeld explained that we are producing the equipment as fast as we physically can and that no expenses are being spared, the Times still managed to convert this into a moral issue. "Have they forgotten the timetable for invading Iraq was dictated by politics, not military necessity?"

You see, every time they get a chance, liberals accuse the Bush administration of invading Iraq for political, rather than national security reasons. That's a very serious charge, and one that reeks of moral judgment.

Don't get me wrong. If, in fact, President Bush put our soldiers' lives at risk for political reasons, he should be condemned in the harshest terms. But knowing his character and concurring with his reasonable assessment that Saddam constituted a gathering threat and a menace, it will be snowing in Hades before you'll convince me his decision to attack was politically motivated.

Also in the Times' editorial segment, the tirelessly cynical Maureen Dowd said this about the same issue, "The dreams of Rummy and the neocons were bound to collide. But it's immoral to trap our troops in a guerrilla war without the essential, life-saving support and materiel just so a bunch of officials who have never been in a war can test their theories. (It's also immoral, Maureen, to make such unsubstantiated, vicious allegations against decent men to whom you have obviously transferred your surfeit of hostility.)

So, which is it? Did Bush do it for political gain or as part of a grand neoconservative experiment in imperialism? The sad truth is that it doesn't even matter to his critics, who simply choose to depict him as a scoundrel at every turn. And they tell us we are the judgmental ones!

Wednesday's Times was hardly exceptional. In the liberal worldview, a common thread of moral conceit runs through nearly every issue. No matter which issue, liberals presume to occupy the moral high ground. Consider these examples from the liberal perspective:

-- Crime and punishment. Conservatives are hard-hearted toward criminals, favoring punishment over rehabilitation.

-- Gun control. Right-wing Neanderthals are so hell-bent on indulging their redneck macho paranoia, they insist on stocking every room in their homes with Uzis, regardless of the potential danger to children and innocent, under-armed victims who might choose, because of unhappy childhoods, to burglarize their property. Continued...