What the hell is "mandatory health coverage"? "You will buy coverage or else"?? Like car insurance? Oh, great.

The New York Times is no longer the paper of record. It's just that simple.

That title now belongs to The Wall Street Journal, with a close second going to The Washington Post.

We would do well to mention this more often. They are now a complete laughingstock.

The op-ed actually did mention "the ten European governments already pledged to our support." It talked about the difference between the support of those governments and the support of their people. That said, it's ridiculous that Europe gets to simultaneously vilify us for not giving enough money in foreign aid and get upset when we finally do want to intervene somewhere. Not that I think we should intervene, but just that if they don't want us to, they need to stop telling us we're evil for not intervening everywhere else.

Did'ya catch this line from the Halstead article?

Of the 41 million Americans without health insurance, a full two-thirds are below the age of 35. Mandating tens of millions of young and relatively healthy Americans to join the insurance risk pool would drive down the costs for everyone.

Can you believe the balls on this guy? He's essentially saying, "requiring people to pay who don't need the services means free money for the rest of us." Wow.

"Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, we shouldn't be picking on Iraq on human rights grounds."

Stephen, I had to go and check that quote to see if you'd made it up. I mean, that was the most logical explanation. And there it was, in black and white: Saddam Hussein did not gas the people of Halabja. This guy says he's a former intelligence analyst. In the words of Sheriff J. W. Pepper in Live And Let Die: on whose side? According to this prick, if Saddam was gassing the Iranians and Halabja got in the way then tough. Shit happens. C'est la guerre. And according to this modern-day colossus of geostrategic thinking, it's not just about the ooooiiilllll. Nope, apparently we want their water as well. What is this, an episode of 'V' that got cut?

No, I'm sorry Stephen. I owe you an apology. You couldn't make tbis stuff up. Only an NYT op-ed could be this morally bakrupt.

Pelletiere, and some others, have been making the argument about Halabja for a while.

What they usually leave out is that, regardless of the SPECIFIC incident at Halabja, there is no real argument that Saddam Hussein broke a taboo that had lasted since World War II that no one should use chemical weapons.

THAT is the key point. Conceding to Pelletiere and company about this sort of thing too often becomes a case of "Ah, so the Iraqis really didn't do anything all that bad."

When seeking moral equivalency, of course, ALL methods are fair....

I found it amusing that Kristof felt the need to make it clear that he also found the French profoundly irritating. It shows how far the French have fallen when even a columnist in the middle of a full-press argument for peace at all costs feels compelled to emphasize how much he dislikes the efforts of the French in arguing for the same thing.

The only reason anyone listens to the French anymore is that they are a member of the Big Boys Club: ICBM's.

De Gaulle was not a TOTAL idiot, he knew that without an independent nuclear capability France would fade quietly into the twilight of European decline....this way we get to hear them whining on the way down!!