It's not easy to begin an article like this. Should one say that despite no persuasive evidence whatever Bush is now pointing to North Korea as a nuclear proliferator? Or should one state what is immediately obvious, which is that the American media are trying to portray North Korea as a nuclear proliferator? But the media are only following the speculations of American functionaries, who are only mouthing another Bush administration folly. Whichever tack one takes, the facts (also to be found in American media, incidentally) are as plain as Bush's guts.

States are states. America is no exception. Some states are more oppressive than others. In point of lying, all states are also not in the same league, but they are qualitatively the same. Pakistan is a big liar. But the USA is not far behind. As a state Pakistan decided to have nuclear arms, and who could prevent this? Or even, for that matter, who could fault Pakistan for wanting to have such weapons?

But let's try to put some truth-value into descriptions of the state of things. It's a patent lie to say that Pakistan did not know that its main bomb-builder was selling nuclear knowhow to other countries. If America chooses to believe in such fabrications, that's its privilege as a state. America used Pakistan and Pakistan let itself be used by America on two occasions, both involving Afghanistan: once against the Soviets and the second time against the Taliban.

The USA doesn't want to alienate Pakistan. Pakistan wants to be on the good side of America. But to concoct an unlikely theory that leaves Pakistan halfway off the hook and places the main responsibility for nuclear proliferation on a country that couldn't do it even if it could crush Bush's gonads in the process, is carrying things a bit far. And that the American press should be buying this offal as if it were ribeye, is what makes one wonder whom to blame for all the lying that has been going on in recent years in America.

American newsmen and editorialists would do their country a favor by stating the facts: that Pakistan has admitted to nuclear proliferation, that there is no evidence that North Korea can do any such thing, and that the USA accepts for convenience Pakistan's dissembling. They would be going supererogatory--Catholic for having more virtue than you need--if they started speculating on the proto-basic American intelligence blunder that made 9/11 possible, which was helping Pakistan install the Taliban in power. And they would be aspiring to canonization--like the no-condom, much lamented, recently deceased pope--if in addition they asked the simple question: is the CIA (to choose one agency from a bundle) either moronic or complicit in nuclear proliferation?

Another fellow well-endowed with Bush's notable guts is Sharon. The American media are also doing their bit here. When Powell, in the wake of the stupendous American victory in Iraq, went public with the "roadmap", Sharon all but spit on it. He could even have used it to blow his nose, but he figured that he out-balled Bush any time and proposed his own roadmap. Bush and Powell thought that Sharon was pulling a fast one on them, so the Israeli PM went to Washington and made Bush do like a seal who sees its feeder carrying the fish bucket. The roadmap was saved. But which roadmap?

The Bush-Powell roadmap contemplated a Palestinian "state" and the reduction of Israeli settlements to the extent they had reached when Sharon was re-elected in March 2003. In exchange, Palestinians had be on their best behavior and the USA would give its approval to Israel's territorial expansion, mainly into the West Bank, since the results of the 1967 war had made it possible. American either naivete or bad faith was fudged in American media reports, not surprising considering that the American media are the "Jewish lobby". Israel was not going to dismantle its West Bank settlements, which the USA anyway had been financing since they began. Sharon's roadmap started, basically, with the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza, which are a fraction of those in the West Bank.

Arafat conveniently died and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, tendered the olive branch. Sharon said he would allow a Palestinian state. Bush added that realistically Israel could not be expected to return to its pre-1967 borders. Sharon had worn down the Second Intifada with about the most ruthless Israeli use of force ever against Palestinians, so when Abbas called for a truce his constituency was not so much convinced as exhausted. That's when Sharon unfolded the rest of his roadmap: Israel, as Bush and Powell had initially feared, would give up Gaza--if it ever does--but would be helping itself to more land in the West Bank. In fact, Sharon's roadmap, a real one, and not the Bush-Powell jerk off plan, really consisted in finally incorporating Jerusalem fully into Israel and allowing Palestinians a patchwork of land they could consider "a state" if they were in a masturbatory mood. Just to make sure they were, Israel began foot-dragging about turning over territory to Palestinian control, which is what it did with Arafat and was now doing with Abbas.

Bush was "horrified", or he assumed some such metaphorical stance (again as per the American media). His gofer at the Department of State was now Condoleezza Rice and she immediately asked Israel for "clarifications". What was there to clarify? Israel had declared it was taking over Jerusalem and would allow only a sham Palestinian state. Among other things, the Israeli defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, was already badmouthing Abbas. But the comedy of pacifying Bush had to be enacted, so Sharon went to Crawford and had Bush sitting up and barking with "re-assurances" that Israel would not be expanding Maale Adumim, oh, not for some months anyway, but would the USA, please, destroy Iran as soon as possible. As to the roadmap, the American press was stumped and finally fell back on calling it "the American-backed roadmap", whatever that meant.