It was from an article in the Jerusalem Post (one I couldn't read completely because I refuse to give my real email address as part of online registration). The article is titled Of Intellectual Bondage and was written by Caroline Glick. Here's part of the article, with emphasis added.

"How could you report the war in Iraq if you sided with the Americans?”

“How can you say that George Bush is better than Saddam Hussein?”

These are some of the milder questions I received from an audience of some 150 undergraduate students from Tel Aviv University’s Political Science Department. The occasion was a guest lecture I gave last month on my experiences as an embedded reporter with the US Army’s 3rd Infantry Division during the Iraq war.

Many of the students were visibly jolted by my assertion that the patriotism of American soldiers was inspirational. The vocal ones among them were appalled when I argued that journalists must be able to make moral distinctions between good and evil, when such distinctions exist, if they wish to provide their readership with an accurate picture of the events they describe in their reports.

“Who are you to make moral judgments? What you say is good may well be bad for someone else.”

“I am a sane human being capable of distinguishing good from evil, just like every other sane human being,” I answered. “As criminal law states, you are criminally insane if you can’t distinguish between good and evil. Unless you are crazy, you should be able to tell the difference.”

That's an interesting perspective - that those who're so politically correct as to refuse to distinguish good from evil are effectively failing the legal test for sanity. Some of Raoul's dismissals of "evil" seem to fall into this category, and it explains a lot about the absurdity of much of Western Europe.