Slight correction: There's only so much that we are WILLING to do. On the otherhand, there is nothing that the enemy is not willing to do, as evidenced by 9/11, the beheadings, and the murder of children in Beslan, Russia.
If a nation is hell-bent on aquiring WMDs--and a preemptive strike is not an option--it mostly likely will aquire them sooner or later.
Why isn't a preemptive strike an option? We have the weapons, but not the will. The enemy has the will, and will soon have the weapons.
It's the job of the POTUS to protect the American people. I want him to stop Iran from acquiring nukes by any means necessary.
Don't worry Israel will take care of it soon.
Beslan: Chechen nationalists
Beheadings: Westerners who were foolish enough to remain (either out of greed or misplaced compassion) in an uncivilized land in a Hobbesian state of nature were killed by "natives". European seekers of fortune have been killed by savages since the Age of Exploration began, only difference is that the cannibals and headhunters of old did not have video cameras.
9/11: American involvement in a part of the world where it clearly does not belong and where the framers did not intend us to be (i.e. the Middle East) comes back to bite us on the backside.
"I want him to stop Iran from acquiring nukes by any means "necessary."
Oh yes, the Iranain nukes. We can't go around trying to stop every soverign state that wants to develop WMDs from doing so. What would you have Dubya do, use atomic weapons to stop Iran's nuclear program? The important stuff is pretty heavily reinforced if I recall. Maybe we can invade Iran. That worked really well in Iraq didn't it. The solutions are politically impossible. That is why a strong nuclear deterrent and a missile defense program is so important. Besides, what nation with a handful of nukes (and no long-range delivery system) is going to use them against a nation with thousands of both.