One of the ways the "Big Lie" is made to work is through a process of endless repetition. Through repeating something over and over again, it is hoped that people -- the weaker people, anyway --will eventually be convinced that it is true.

But there is another category of person who, while he will never be persuaded of the truth of the lie, will nonetheless succumb to fatigue. It's similar to an elementary principle of politics: that success goes not to those who are right, nor even those with the best arguments, but to those who are willing to sit there and listen to tedious drivel until two in the morning when finally their opponents grow tired and go home.

This is why I do not want to write about the lying meme that Bush "manufactured" the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. The proponents of this completely disregard innumerable statements like these by Democrats, they disregard CIA Director Tenet's characterization of the evidence (of WMDs) as a "slam dunk", and they repeat, over and over, that Bush and the NeoCons made it all up for the first time, and that WMDs were the only reason we went to war.

To me, it's all too tedious for words, and it wasn't why I started blogging. I wanted to discuss ideas, not endlessly repeat what I believe to be the truth about a particular issue simply because the people on the other side have repeated themselves. It almost reminds me of why I hated litigation: it's never over, and each side just keeps slinging more and more paper, all of which requires a response, which response requires another response, and so on.

Yet things have reached the point that if I continue not saying something simply because I am tired of the repetitive nature of the argument, that might be seen as a confirmation of the effectiveness of the repetition -- something I have no intention of doing. Seen this way, the endless recitation of the repetition harangue has itself reached a sort of tipping point -- where it has become a new idea (and thus fair game for this blog).

I am, it is true, sick to death of the repetition, but not so sick of it that I can't pause to ask whether this country can be defeated by what amount to weapons of mass repetition, and I'm glad President Bush finally spoke up about it.

But I don't blame him for having ignored this for so long, because it doesn't say much about the way the human mind works that repetition should have to be countered by repetition.

(I guess there are certain occasions when we'd better harangue together lest we be harangued separately.)

MORE: As California Conservative points out, when Bush finally objected to the steady litany of repetition, he was accused of "attacking" and "escalating":

Playing a semantical game by stating that Bush is “escalating” the “bitter debate,” the AP makes it sound as though Bush is the aggressor. In other words, if he remained silent (as he has heretofore), that would be better. And Democrats most assuredly wish it would be so.

“Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.”

Once again, the AP is mischaracterizing. Intentionally? Readers can decide. But the truth is: In responding to the Democrats’ repeated and increasingly shrill accusations of “lies about the war” (their attack), President Bush is defending his position — not “attacking.”

Who does Bush think he is, anyway? An Israeli?