Krugman's points are clear, substantiated, and telling.

This article is excrement. It is a juvenile rant totally devoid of facts, insight, analysis and logic. The author is clearly mentally unbalanced and intellectually impaired. I give this article a zero rating.

Well argued and well written. But is an opinion piece journalism (reporting) or commentary? Are they different? The big problem today with the debate over "biased media" is that too many people don't seem to understand where reporting leaves-off and opinion begins.

Not quality journalis,. This is from a "correspondent" with a political axe to grind. It is all invented: no news, no insightful commentary, simply bad journalism.

This is more than opinion, it is insight; something sadly lacking in America's government and media. How could the naive idea of "training" the Afghan army and police to western standards be anything other than an illusion turned into policy prescription. And have you ever asked yourself why the Taliban and insurgents never seem to require "training"?

This is an opinion expressed by an informed journalist. It expresses an informed view of the situation.

This is an opinion piece by a journalist who has looked, learned, and spoken. He has it right. Until people realise that Afghanistan has never had a "strong" central government; that it always has been a country ruled by regional strongmen and tribal chieftains; that an ethnically-based civil war is underway; and that "Taliban" is simply a misleading label for a wide range of disaffected Pashtun, not an organisation or movement. Al Qaeda is largely irrelevant and remains in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Afghanistan should be left alone to reach its own equilibrium.

This is an opinion piece without any analytical or objective merit.

No, it contradicts the first notion of quality journalism which is to expose falsehood and seek the truth. Journalism is not just printing press releases from the parties and quoting competing party spokesmen in the name of "balance". Taranto's obvious problem and discomfort is that his candidate comes out badly in any objective truth" ranking. If the WSJ was to do its job there would be no need for special fact checking columns or websites; and those that fell short of journalistic integrity, like this obviously partisan opinion piece, would be punished by the market.

This is an extremely well reasoned and well presented opinion piece. It cuts through the partisan political noise and clearly sates its premiss and its logical conclusions.

This is an opinion piece and as written is good journalism. It makes broad generalisations but generalisations usualy contain a large measure of insight. Afghanistan is a backward pre-modern nation. It has never been a cohesive political state as we know it, rather a medieval rural feudal society run by regional chiefs. The Pushtoon ethnic group was permitted the trappings of power in Kabul i.e. the monarchy as long as they didn't interfere with the other ethnic groups in the provinces. The expulsion of the Taliban finally put an end to this historical bargain. The very, very small westernised urban middle/upper class mostly located in Kabul was decimated by the civil war which followed the communist coup and subsequent Russian ... More »

This is an important piece because it gets behind the "news", clears away the fog, and asks the hard questions that all Americans of whatever political stripe should be asking. Why are we there? What are our objectives? What is winning and how will we know when we get there. And, is it all worth it. It is the American media's shame that these questions are not constantly being asked and answers demanded. It posits realistic future scenarios based on Iraq's history and recent experience. It is not a partisan polemic but a rational analysis.

Well written and researched article. It clearly shows how the rabid right can be relied upon to careen between less-than-subtle racist and fear-mongering subtexts, and outright stupidity when given the slightest excuse. Michelle's remark was right on target and not unpatriotic: You love your children (country) but are not always proud of what they do. And she is, gasp, black and an uppity one at that. The shock, the horror. ! Who can possibly be proud of the "America" as played by Bush and Co. over the past eight years? (This comment was posted incorrectly to another article).

Well written and researched article. It clearly shows how the rabid right can be relied upon to careen between less-than-subtle racist and fear-mongering subtexts, and outright stupidity when given the slightest excuse. Michelle's remark was right on target and not unpatriotic: You love your children (country) but are not always proud of what they do. And she is, gasp, black and an uppity one at that. The shock, the horror. ! Who can possibly be proud of the "America" as played by Bush and Co. over the past eight years?

Obviously I agree with the article and the statement of Richard Clarke. A national consumer boycott of any firms taking on members of the Bush gang as consultants, advisers or Board members should be instituted.

Joe Lieberman: Senator for the great state of Israel. This guy is further to the right than most voters in Israel. He should be kicked out of the Democratic caucus at the first opportunity.

A reasonably fair and balanced analysis of the McCain strategy.

This clearly an opinion piece and a damned good one. I agree with every word. Hillary shamed herself last night.

This seems loaded against Obama by the use of terminology "subsidies" and by minimal and somewhat dismissive explanations of Obama's positions as contrasted to lengthy explanations of McCain's. The last paragraph seems grafted-on by an editor to provide "balance".

A hard hitting expose of Gramm and his influence on McCain.

A well reasoned and balanced analysis (with the advantage of hindsight). However it falls down in not addressing what many American's feel are serious character flaws including driving ambition and a sense of entitlement. On every comparison with Obama she came out more flawed and more "bush-lite" and "old Washington politics".

It describes McCain's position, puts it in the context of his previous statements, draws attention to inconsistencies, and raises the larger question of McCain's position regarding the expansion of Executive powers under the Bush administration. Not a friendly article to McCain but seemingly an objective one.

I personally don't agree with McCain's position but this is about the article, not McCain. I thought it did what it was supposed to do which was to report what McCain said, then put it in context of the campaign and the contrary position of Obama. Nice touch to quote the National iranian American Council, from which I would judge this article to be somewhat biased against McCain..