But maybe I can have the last word.

I'm sick to death of hearing "reasonable" "liberals" patiently explain that Bush is not an idiot or a sociopath . . . and that labelling him as an idiot or sociopath is counterproductive and discrediting.

He is an idiot.

He is a sociopath.

And I, for one, think there's value in calling a spade a spade here. How are we to discourage idiotic and sociopathic behaviors when we aren't allowed to identify instances of willful idiocy and sociopathy?

A substantial portion of this country thinks -- and announces, constantly -- that I and my friends are wicked sinners who are going to burn for all eternity in hell (after we spend a lifetime trying to destroy America). And I'm not allowed to call Bush a sociopath?

And to the people who have, in that teacher's-pet tone I can't stand, pointed out that "Draper is only stating the obvious -- that Bush is a human being": I think the frustration you're hearing from other commenters here is the shocked recognition that Bush is not as much of a human being as we would like him to be. His policies on torture, for instance -- and his glibness when confronted with the disasters he has caused at home (New Orleans . . . ignoring the "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." memorandum) and abroad (take your pick) . . . these are not evidence of "humanity" as we use the term in daily life.

Inhumanity should be condemned when it occurs in humans.

By the way, I assign some ofthe blame for all of this to liberalism -- specifically the touchy-feely education reforms that insisted that "smart" was no better than "dumb," that children and, I guess, adults) shouldn't be stigmatized for their lack of intellectual discipline and -- yes -- incuriosity. Smart is, in fact, better than dumb. Educated is better than ignorant.

And, again:

1) Bush is an idiot.

2) Bush is a sociopath.

and

3) Inhumanity should be condemned when it occurs in humans.

Bring out the "dark theories."

You know we're all thinking the same thing.

As irritating as professional conspiracy nuts may be, I find anti-conspiracy snobs even more insufferable.

I'm referring to those people who know -- somehow -- that everything is as it appears to be . . . who understand that it's childish to dig deeper or to be skeptical. The grown-ups who think it's gross that we'd suspect the worst, even when we're suspecting it of the worst people.

How many other things have come out in the last six years that initially "taxed credulity?" (Presumably, the bombing of al-Jazeera's headquarters in Iraq a few years back was a freak accident?)

If there's ever been a time in our history when the assassination of military officers critical of the war would not "tax credulity," this is the moment. I think it's unlikely that "blackwater mercs" "took out a hit" on these guys -- unlikely but (ha) not impossible . . . but I wouldn't be surprised if these guys were shifted to more dangerous assignments in retribution for the op-ed. What's most likely is that these officers died in just the way the military claims. But there's no longer any reason to trust the official account. Anti-conspiracy snobbery and the desire to appear savvy and aloof are not good reasons.

I'm also creeped out by the commenters who "don't see what the big deal is" about these particular soldiers being killed. Here were some people loudly and bravely denouncing the war, even as they risked their lives in service of it. Not long after, their voices were silenced by the same war they spoke out against. Improbable conspiracy theories aside, there's something deeply affecting about that. It's the loss of those voices that's new; with these deaths comes some instant of recognition that each of the soldiers killed in this war HAD a unique voice. It's also a reminder that soldiers fulfill their duties whatever their own political judgments may be.

Seriously, guys -- the aloofness and savviness is fatiguing. Go be aloof and savvy somewhere else.