So is President Bush a liar? Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Bush like Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Big Lies, Thieves in High Places and The Lies of George W. Bush.

A consensus is emerging on the left that Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil -- a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, Farenheit 9/11.

In the 1990s, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, even accusing them of spending their spare time murdering Vince Foster and others. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Moore hints that the real reason Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Clinton was a serial killer.

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.

Lefties have been asking me whether Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Bush will plant WMD in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Bush actually believed that Saddam did have WMD. After one briefing, Bush turned to George Tenet and protested: "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Bush told Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, 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 Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies -- witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.True, Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And 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"), Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Bush's central problem is not that he was precisely lying about Iraq, but rather 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.

Some Democrats, like Clinton and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and Farenheit 9/11 marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of Farenheit 9/11, look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays -- yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

Commentary:
We have to put political commentary like this into perspective. Did Kristof call Clinton a liar. Yes. Did the rest of the media call Clinton and Gore liars. Of course they did. Didn't they lower our political discourse? Of course they did. Now they want to raise our discourse to a higher level by ignoring Bush's lies. Was it just the right wing nuts that lied to us about Whitewater being a scandal, no, it was the New York Times. The Times pushed Whitewater, our first scandaless scandal. They lied to us for eight solid years. Today, we have mountains of evidence that Bush lied. Even the IAEA said he lied about Saddam being six months away from nukes. Over and over again Bush has been caught in lies and the media has held back, never wanting to admit the man they helped put in the White House is a pathological liar.

Kristof supported the war and therefore everything he says about the lies that led to war should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, would you want to admit to all your readers that you lied to them as Kristof has done. WMD and the Iraq war are the first political scandal since McCarthyism that required a complacent media. They are part of the scandal. Today, instead of damning Bush for lying to us they make excuses (both to protect themselves and to protect him). If you're still not sure if Bush lied ask yourself this one question, "if Bush's evidence was so solid, why couldn't the UN inspectors verify one word of it before the war." The answer is simple, "because there was no evidence."