It's not an article, it's an op-ed... surprised? Not me. But let's set that aside and look at what's in it; not merely the last two paragraph's worth of grasping at straws.

The first two paragraphs are a lame attempt at sarcasm, and thankfully abandoned early. Then Steyn pulls up a truly interesting subject, one I've pondered since the constant replay from all angles - that damned statue's demise:

The only question is: What precisely does the great symbolic image symbolize? Is it the Middle Eastern equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, an act that rippled across half a continent? Or is it something smaller, more contained, a crack in the ice but the hard face of the rest of the lake remains frozen?

Not just interesting, but well written... and lost almost as quickly as the first two. He finishes that paragraph with some historical reminders of the fall of the Ottoman Empire's hold on the region, and the cultural diversity that wasa found therein... and goes nowhere with it. Well, almost nowhere... he uses it as a clumsy segue into the same strident insistence that we who believe we can still think for ourselves are so damn tired of:

[a] Armed invasion is/was/ever shall be the only way to liberate/disarm Iraq, and anyone who thinks otherwise supports Saddam's evil treatment of his own citizens.

Steyn uses the easiest target - the French - as a catch-all (dare I say 'strawman'?):

''Les Anglo-Saxons'' are not perfect. But if the alternative is the French, who never met a dictator they didn't like, ['scuse me? The French [b]liked Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?] then Bush and Blair are the best hope of mankind. France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. The pictures from the streets of Baghdad make that plain.

No, of course not - no one who holds an opinion other than Bush/Blair's can be on the side of peace or morality! The Ministry of Truth says so; therefore everyone else is mentally ill.

...and finally, just to make sure that all of the countries in the list above which are not France are nonetheless tarred with the Big Brush, Steyn takes a sideswipe at Canada because a familial connection can be made between the sitting PM and a French oil monopoly. If the same kind of questionable connections don't bother Americans about their own government, why should we pay attention when they point at others'?

Phrased differently: as long as we're trading accusations of hypocrisy, why is it not about oil to the war supporters except when they're insulting the non-supporters, in which case it becomes all about oil?

And now, Tom... to your own words:

If Chretien was an American Republican politician, this little conflict of interest would be on the New York Times front page every day for a month.

I'm not where I can see the NYT's front page conveniently, but since the equivalent 'little conflict of interest' does exist in the US Executive branch... has it been placed where it belongs, in the face of the people whom that government serves? Or have you forgotten why a free press is essential to democracy?

The motivations of the Axis of Weasels are becoming obvious even to the dimmest observers.

Ordinarily, Tom, you are far from the dimmest observer, here or elsewhere. Don't get lazy - you do much better when you're actively thinking for yourself.