More on our topic du jour, from Paul Krugman:

“‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn’t promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren’t the reason why millions of people who aren’t die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn’t. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven’t been doing their job.

“For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading ‘My Pet Goat’ with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush’s decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction….

“Mr. Bush’s carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry’s upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush’s down-home time at the ranch?

“But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.”

Question: is there really anyone who was conscious on September 11, 2001 who can recall President Bush’s performance that day–indeed, that whole week–as anything other than pathetic? The contrast between this ne’er-do-well, frivolous, obviously-out-of-his-depth ninny and the few grown-ups in public evidence on September 11 (notably, Mayor Giuliani of NYC) is, to my mind, unforgettable. But Professor Krugman is, of course, right that since then we’ve been told what a wonderful “leader” Bush has been in the “war [sic] on terrorism.” Does the word “leader” have any meaning anymore?