How is that question relevant? What we have is none of the above: an incompetent politician who lies.
Yes, that's what you have. We, on the other hand, have a competent politican who lies - and I'd rather keep he stayed than let the other monkeys run the country.
The relevance is quite simple: lying is not a cardinal sin in a politician. Bush has failed on so many actual, real policy fronts and yet RAZD is harping on about a trivial issue of truth. Why not criticise him for his failure to run the economy properly? Why not fret about his squandering of international good will? Or his dangerous approach to international law? How about his dismal record on human rights and civil liberties? Or the environment? How about his undermining of the constitutional checks and balances of American politics?
Lying is a trivial side issue; failing to competently run a country is not.