Nicholas Kristof Should Stop Confusing Me

Like most Americans, I read the New York Times editorial page in order to know what to think. It is therefore critical that Nicholas Kristof stop saying things I don't understand.

For instance, on June 30th Kristof explained that:

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.

Then, in his very next column on July 3rd, he quoted Donald Rumsfeld as saying this about Al Jazeera:

We are dealing with people that are perfectly willing to lie to the world to attempt to further their case—and to the extent people lie, ultimately they are caught lying and they lose their credibility.

So, if you're like me, you assumed that Kristof would then wallop Rumsfeld for calling Al Jazeera liars. After all, it impedes understanding.

Instead, Kristof simply and sardonically writes: "Good point." That is, Kristof is implying that Donald Rumsfeld (or perhaps the Bush administration generally) has been caught lying and lost credibility.

So I don't get it. First it wasn't okay for anyone to call George Bush a liar. But three days later it seems to be okay to imply Donald Rumsfeld is a liar, at least if you're Nicholas Kristof.

Nicholas Kristof must be clearer so I can understand how to be alive properly.