If you're going to accuse a president of lying and committing crimes, it might be nice to provide some particulars. But Frank Rich sees no need for such niceties in his New York Times column of today.
The putative topic is the McClellan book, but the real subject is Rich's abject Bush hatred. After referring to Pres. Bush as "the loathed lame duck," Rich writes:
Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution.
So Bush lied and people died, is that it? What was the lie, where was the crime? Is Rich referencing WMD here, the same WMD that President Clinton, every major Dem leader at the time, and countries from France to Russia also said Saddam had? Rich doesn't say. If not WMD, something else? If so, what? And just what is the "resolution" Rich demands? Even Keith Olbermann recently, regretfully, recognized it's probably too late for impeachment.
Is Rich proposing the criminal prosecution of the president, then? Then why not have the courage to say so? Put in on the table. Note also Rich's use of the imperial "we." "We" view it as a crime story, and "we" won't be satisfied till there's a resolution. Does the Times columnist really purport to speak for the American people at large? Rich and like souls obviously loathe President Bush But my sense is that while many Americans are dissatisfied with the president's performance, relatively few hate him in the way Rich apparently imagines.
If a columnist is going to level these kinds of charges, and call for these kind of consequences, I'd say he should have the integrity and courage to speak in his own name and tell readers just what he's proposing.