Help me out. Frank Rich is claiming that the Bush administration’s posturing against Iran may not lead to any war per se, but its anti-Iran propaganda—most of it lies, anyway—will probably put a Republican in the White House because Democrats—particularly Hillary Clinton—won’t fall in step with the propaganda. I’m having a difficult time deciding which stinks more: a) the unsaid “logical” conclusion—really, a cynical assumption—that, if Democrats want to win, Clinton and the other candidates must become more stridently pro-war; or b) the position Rich himself is taking of a man who sees lies for what they are but recommends that others act as though they were truth. I lean toward b, but I’m willing to be convinced.