Nick, How Could You? Part II

I find myself in very good company today. Nick Kristof's weaselly defense of the Deserter has elicited comment from many quarters of the blogosphere, and virtually all are asking the same question: what is wrong with calling a liar a liar?

Ben Tripp at Counterpunch: "O Nicholas, what a supplicant, mewling, lickspittle Polonius thou art, spineless and vile."

The Poor Man catalogues the Deserter's many prevarications and puts them in perspective:

These are all lies, told by the President himself. This doesn't include any distortions, half-truths, or exaggerations, or any lies told by senior figures in the administration. These lies are big and small. Together, these lies involve trillions of dollars and at least tens of thousands of deaths, and Nicholas Kristof is terribly concerned about sharp words and Michael Moore movies. It is indeed too bad that the "political cesspool" is becoming polarized, but I don't think that the solution to this is to shoot the messenger and agonize over ever-finer definitions of falsehood. It shouldn't be this difficult to get your priorities in order.

Roger Ailes weighs in: "Sure, Bush does stretch the truth and exaggerate, but those aren't lies when Bush says them. And besides, the lies were only about a war with Iraq."

And finally, Tristero, with sublime concision: "I'd be happy to stop calling Bush a liar when he stops lying."

Really, Nick, can't one preserve one's precious gentility and at the same time condemn the lies of a prolific liar?