...noted here for silencing Oriana Fallaci.
In other "too stupid to live" news:
- President Jacques Chirac drew scorching criticism in Europe on Friday for suggesting France would consider a nuclear response to state-sponsored terrorism.
Chirac's headline-grabbing comments in a speech Thursday sent a warning to countries like Iran and sought to nip in the bud domestic debate about whether deeply indebted France still needs its expensive nuclear deterrent in the post-Cold War world.
Chirac was merely noting nuclear terrorism would receive a proportional response, but the moonbat brigades will have none of it.
Wake me when the adults are back in charge. AP does criticism a grave injustice by calling these shrill "no nukes but Iranian nukes" essential idiots "critics."
As the Middle East builds nuclear weapons like hot cakes, the European Left thinks French unilateral disarmament is called for.
"Jacques Chirac is an idiot," chided Belgian daily De Morgen in an editorial. "He lives in a time where France is no longer a world power, but he's still acting as if prolonging a Napoleonic dynasty."
Spain's El Pais called the speech "radical and dangerous."
Many faulted the timing. France, Britain and Germany have been seeking guarantees that Iran will not develop nukes, and have taken key steps toward possible U.N. sanctions against Tehran.
"Such saber rattling in the face of the current crisis over Iran's atomic weapons program is basically a false signal," said Xanthe Hall of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in Berlin.
If Chirac ends his tenure as president next year, he will have left an indelible mark on France's nuclear deterrent. Shortly after winning the presidency in 1995, he drew international fury by ordering France's final nuclear tests in the South Pacific.
Conservative Milan daily Il Giornale suggested the "pacifist sympathies" for Chirac over his opposition to the U.S.-led Iraq war had worn off.
France's nuclear arsenal, which analysts estimate at some 300 warheads mostly deployed on submarines, is viewed as a deterrent tool and is not intended for a battle situation.
Observers saw a political pitch at home by Chirac: activist groups and even military circles have questioned the euro3 billion-plus ($3.62 billion) annual cost to keep up France's nuclear arsenal.
I'll number this for emphAsis. Practically, that's chump change for a serious nuclear deterrent well-protected on subs.
1. France has a nuclear deterrent force to strike and deter nations like Iran from nuclear attack.
2. That benefit extends to other European nations.
What "military circles"?