Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

whomod said:
Bush chose evidence that had already been discredited, to present to the American people. Evidence that was known to be false long before he presented it to the American people as PROOF of our imminent doom.



Wrong again.

Bush presented--and made clear he was presenting--evidence that we received from British intelligence which, at the time, the British believed to be accurate. In fact, Britain still stands by that intelligence.

So, other than your own emotional reaction, you don't have one shred of actual evidence that Bush deliberately misled anyone.



That's what bothers me about what Whomod is saying (and many other liberals as well ), voicing a relentless stream of unproven allegations against Bush, as if they are facts.

I don't have a problem with voicing the possibility of wrongdoing under any President, investigating, and asking tough questions.
But I do have a problem with slander, relentlessly saying these allegations as if they were proven, to the point that the uninformed actually believe that these allegations are proven.
That's deliberate and bitter misrepresentation.

No proof of "blood for oil".
No proof of "Bush fought the Iraq war for his father".
No proof of "Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened" (as Dean alleges).
No proof that Bush and Cheney gave the contract to Halliburton through cronyism.
No proof of a war profiteering motive by Bush's administration, to allegedly get themselves rich.
No proof that Bush's White House leaked information about ambassador Wilson.
And ultimately, no proof that Bush deceived the public in any way to persuade the nation to invade Iraq.

Allegations, not facts.

And relentlessly asserting these allegations as if they were facts is inflammatory and divisive.