tween life and
             games. In life one must be decent and honest and must not seem to be trying
             too hard. But in gamesâ€"including politicsâ€"one must be ruthless, and one
             must win. One is not really misbehaving because it's only a game. So the
             memorable dishonesties of Bushi¿½ I were highly original artifices on novel or
             obscure topics, such as Massachusetts prison-furlough policy or teachers
             who won't pledge allegiance to the flag or how many times Bill Clinton
             raised taxes as governor of Arkansas. The great ones were often technically
             true and essentially false at the same time, and the complete performance
             always included wave upon wave of follow-up obfuscation.
             Bush the Elder didn't actually do a lot of the heavy lying himself. He
             had people for that sort of thing. For Bill Clinton, by contrast, a lie was
             a seductionâ€"and a personal challenge. Clinton's biggest lieâ€"will it ever be
             topped' â€" was a daredevil triple back-flip off the high board.
             If the truth was too precious to waste on politics for Bushi¿½ I and a
             challenge to overcome for Clinton, for George W. Bush it is simply boring
             and uncool. Bushi¿½ II administration lies are often so laughably obvious that
             you wonder why they bother. Until you realize: They haven't bothered. If
             telling the truth was less bother, they'd try that too. The characteristic
             Bushi¿½ II form of dishonesty is to construct an alternative reality on some
             topic and to regard anyone who objects to it as a sniveling dweeb obsessed
             with "nuance," which the president of this class, I mean of the United
             States, has more important things to do than worry about.
             You can just see Bush rolling his eyes at the fussâ€"small as it isâ€"over
             his administration's role in the recent mi...