[Gumption]

The article says what wasn't said and what could have been said, but doesn't reveal what WAS said.

Regardless, the insulting part was what Chirac meant, and the hypocrisy of it all.

[js1138]

The article says what wasn't said and what could have been said, but doesn't reveal what WAS said.

I'm glad some else notices that. And yes, it was the intent, not the words.

[Exit148]

To your #14 ----- right on!

The NYT can whitewash it as much as they wish. The words went out, they were insulting, and the reaction to them was widespread. All the op-ed's can't change that.