Bush Not a Liar. Not.

Nicholas Kristof spent this morning's column to decry those on the left --- who usually take a nuanced view -- of calling Bush a liar, when he's actually just self-deluded, deceiving the public only as an incidental result of the fact that he can't tell what's true and what's not. And sometimes he's too confused even to produce a parsable sentence.

Kristof instead wants us to point out the intricate psychological difficulties of the President, with proper caveat for his lack of intent to deceive: He's dumb! What's a nation to do?

Let's try that out: Bush did not intend to deceive the nation into the Iraq war. He simply can't find his ass with his hands. And so, he only incidentally deceived the nation into the Iraq war.

There's a problem with Kristof's statement: it relies only on the textual evidence. If someone comes up to you to say, "That man has my wallet! I know he does! He's a thief, he's stolen wallets before! Grab him! Grab him! Grab him!", only to find the thief doesn't have the wallet -- and the someone explains "Well, I *thought* he had my wallet, and he did in fact steal wallets before. It was the best evidence I had at the time" is that someone a liar for over-reacting on faulty evidence? Yes, because they failed to hold their actions in proportion to their evidence. Their actions are the lie. "Doing the best they can" may work for grade school -- it does not work when applying the war making power. The best thing to do with Saddam was what Clinton and Madeline Albright have been going around saying this last week: continue sanctions, inspections, and a policy of containment.

What Kristof may not understand is that our politics and country are being run by people who laugh at those hung up on such subtleties. What is important to them is that they have the power, and they will use it brutally, and rely on technicalities to not be held responsible. The right points at Clinton and says "Hah! Pot calling the kettle black! Clinton lied *under oath* and tried to use technicalities to get away with it." Again, lack of propotion: Clinton was about blowjobs. Bush abolished our constitutional rights (and thank you, Supreme Court, for giving them back yesterday) and exercised the most important power of the President -- warmaking. They use the same kind of disingenous technicalities of language that Clinton got off on (ahem), but for purposes which threaten our shared constitutional goals, not just blowjobs.

However - let's take a moment to recognize that Kristof, through his columns these past few months, brought the impending genocide of 1,000,000 people in the Sudan to the US's attention, and maybe Colin Powell will be able to act on it quickly enough to stop some of it. An enormous, towering acheivement of opinion and reportage.