James Carroll lacks the depth to be even a hack columnist

If I had a dime for every professional wordsmith that doesn't know the difference between the word “overtop” and “breech”, I’d be an insanely rich man.

A week after the AP Katrina story was debunked, James Carroll uses it to press on with his anti-Bush bile. He tries to be transparent, though:

“Critics of the president (among whom I must be counted)”

-you don’t say?

His column brands the President as a liar based on the Katrina video and then delves into Bush as a fictional character named “Bush”– using the fake but accurate rationale that has so infected the left. Does Bush lie and feel guilty? Does he unconsciously block the truth? Those are the probing questions Carroll poses. But, he concludes that the President lacks the depth to be a fictional character.

“From all appearances, the president is not a candidate for the role of ''Bush"because a narrative that unfolds across the terrain of an inner life requires an inner life, and Bush shows no sign of having one.”

Since I’m not a journalist, I guess I don’t know how papers work. Do columnists have editors that can stop this kind of garbage from soiling their rag?