Sorry, when I saw that he was at a literary conference, all I could think was Vogon Poetry.

Just so we're clear on the Castro playbook:

1. Executing dissidents. Okay.
2. Concentration Camps for homosexuals. No problem.
3. Killing enemies in wartime. Barbarous.

Are you really that surprised that Castro would denounce a U.S. military act. Why are you giving time and space being outraged and offended by this? Try dealing with a real issue.

If it's anti-American Castro can be depended upon to defend it.

Rather like our own press, that way.

Communists and American hating leftists in lock step with each other. The American hating left is far more dangerous than the Islamofacists are to the security and prosperity of the US.

Vogon Poetry.

Now that's a war crime.

Castro got it totally wrong. The interesting moral question revolves around two facts:

- a woman and a child were among the dead,

- troops were close enough to get to the house before Zarqawi died.

Now, should we have tried a foot-on-ground raid to reduce civilian casualties? And, how do we measure "minimum" civilian casualties these days?

I don't ask this because I think the question is easy, or because the military got it wrong ... it's more troubling to me that collateral damage is yielding less comment as the war drags on.

odo: I'm all for minimizing collateral damage but apparently they thought an air strike faster and thus more likely to ensure Zarqawi didn't escape. Certainly, with a target this high on the pecking order, one takes more risks.

mcgehee; i think it's only the third worst in the universe!

mcgehee; i think it�s only the third worst in the universe!

That's because mine is the second worst.