Sometimes I can't keep the liberal position on the use of the military straight. Are we supposed to be the world's policeman? Are we supposed to have an exit strategy before we send troops in? Are we stretched too thin? Is the Army falling apart?

Just about every single one of these positions have been trumpeted at one time or another by those on the left, including The New York Times editorial page. So color me a little befuddled when I saw the Times printed an editorial demanding the U.S. send troops into the middle of a civil war.

I think the genocide that's been going on in Sudan is appalling and the international community's collective shrug is despicable, but last time I checked the French military wasn't doing anything really pressing.

On the other hand, the Times didn't seem very outraged when Saddam Hussein was massacring his own people on a daily basis.

You'll have to excuse me if I tend to think that the New York Times calling for the use of military force after all they've done to give the military a black eye over the past few years is a little like someone who cries "police brutality" every time some punk criminal is arrested and then wonders why the cops are slow to respond when they're being mugged.

I'm sure the Times has the number of the French embassy, maybe they should use it.