Calling Bush a Liar -- the wonders of the internet

Earlier this year Nicholas Kristof published an op-ed in the NY Times called "Calling Bush A Liar" in which he counselled "I'm against the ''liar'' label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding." Well enough, but it doesn't really answer the substantive question he raises. In fact, Kristof himself claims,

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies -- witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says (''I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family''), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public -- a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

To me, that is parsing things mighty fine, kinda like "depends on what the meaning of is is." In fact, the reasoning is worthy of the David Brooks.

But, anyway, that is not really the whole point of this post. This is supposed to be about the wonders of the internet.

The Kristof story kicked up quite a storm in the blogosphere, and I read one particular post that nearly knocked me out. But I couldn't remember exactly where. So today I type into google "nicholas kristoff bush lies." And even though I had mispelled the writer's name, the VERY FIRST hit was what I was looking for. Pretty amazing, huh?

But even more amazing was that this very post, by The Poorman, is itself testimony to the powers of the internet and of blogs in particular. I don't know how to make his links show up in my quote, so you will have to follow the link to get the full effect:

He has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells. He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC. He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about his deficit spending, and now my wrist hurts.

Each of these LIES links to a different article documenting the lies. His people also even lied about the weather and how he likes his philly cheesesteak (links to come).

Kristof's main objection seems to be that to call Bush a liar is to sound shrill -- just like the Clinton haters. As Krugman said a while back, just to list the malfeasance is to sound crazy. But follow these links if you dare.