How many of you don’t find the following passage from the NYT utterly bizarre?

Admiral Hueber also said that the coalition was communicating with
rebel forces. But later, when he was pressed on whether the United
States was telling rebels not to go down certain roads because there
would be airstrikes there, he said he had misspoken. American military
officials have said there are no “official communications” with the
rebels, which remains a delicate issue. Contact with the rebels would
reflect a direct American military intervention in the civil war of
another country.

Attacking Libyan armed forces isn’t “direct American military intervention,” but talking to the rebels is?  Is there really anyone on Earth who uses this focal point?

Not quite as bizarre, but still jaw-dropping:

Taken together, the actions in Berlin demonstrate anew Germany’s
increasing willingness in a post-cold-war world to act like other
countries, subordinating relations with allies for the sake of national
interests — and even for domestic political reasons.

The implicit public choice model seems to be that politicians’ priorities are NORMALLY:

First: Relations with allies
Second: National interests
Last: Re-election

In fact, given the slightly incredulous tone of the article, the article’s position is apparently that its model of politicians’ priorities isn’t merely true, but common knowledge.  This isn’t just Political Romance; it’s Political Amour Fou.