Sometimes, you just stumble across a gem that unintentionally speaks volumes about it's author. Today's example comes from Paul Krugman:

Last week President Bush declared that the election was the "accountability moment" for the war in Iraq - the voters saw it his way, and that's that. But Mr. Bush didn't level with the voters during the campaign and doesn't deserve anyone's future trust.

I won't belabor the W.M.D. issue, except to point out that the Bush administration, without exactly lying, managed to keep most voters confused. According to a Pew poll, on the eve of the election the great majority of voters, of both parties, believed that the Bush administration had asserted that it found either W.M.D. or an active W.M.D. program in Iraq.

An Amercan turns on the TV. What does she see? The media. She turns on her radio to hear the news while she drives. To whom does she listen? She picks up a newspaper or weekly news magazine to find out how things are going in Iraq. Who is she reading? The mainstream news media. She listens to a comedian, late night, recap the days events as jokes. When the president speaks, who filters, excerpts, and dissects his words in endless editorials and news articles? The media. On the Internet, she connects to a major news site to read articles which have been reprinted from ... that's right: the news media.

Somehow, according to Krugman, many people got the idea the president claimed we'd found WMD in Iraq. If this idea was, as Krugman implies, wrong -- and Bush had in fact made no such assertion -- then where would people have gotten that idea?

Wouldn't the media, in which our culture is saturated, be an obvious culprit to at least consider?

No. In Paul Krugman's world, if people are confused about Iraq, then somehow Bush must be solely to blame. Bush, when he isn't tangle-tongued, apparently possesses some kind of eerie, awesome kind of mind-control power which is able to penetrate or circumvent the many filters and deflectors of the vast media machine which produces every newscast, newspaper, radio broadcast, and news magazine we imbibe in our every waking moment.

You know, I remember the run-up to the Iraq war. I remember watching Bush's speeches. I remember how he said Saddam had links to terrorism -- which Saddam most certainly did. Then I remember how editorial after editorial claimed, falsely, that Bush had said Saddam had links to al Qaeda or had been involved in 9/11.

Then they ran polls which showed -- shock! -- that somehow, people thought Iraq had links to 9/11 or al Qaeda. Where on earth did they get the idea? The editorialists and news reporters who had put those words into Bush's mouth? Or even news reports which seemed, indeed, to show such links?

No, from the Bush administration, of course.

What an amazing mind Krugman has. When looking to what shapes a person's opinon on current events, I cannot help but think the news media might have, you know, some influence or responsibility. But somehow, he is able to see past such obvious errors and expose the daring, blazing truth only he is brave enough to trumpet: All misconceptions about Iraq are Bush's fault, and the news media has no influence whatsoever.

Truly, truly amazing.