Kristof is a jerk:

In today's New York Times Op-Ed, Nicholas Kristof writes the following:

... is President Bush a liar?

[...]

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.

Put aside the argument about Bush lying - something Kristof asserts Bush did not do. Focus instead on Kristof's notion that using the word "lie" is an insult which "impede[s] understanding". That's simply not true. If someone has lied, saying so does not impede understanding. If anything, it enhances understanding of the president.

Kristof's column is one long pitch to get readers to:

• Accept the notion that Bush has merely "stretched the truth", peddled "exaggerations", and avoided "the most blatant lies" on matters of national security and war. And that's no big deal.
  
  
• Even if you don't accept Kristof's assessment of Bush, you should shut the hell up and not call Bush a liar.

posted by Quiddity at 6/30/2004 06:02:00 AM