Can they DISPROVE Bush is a liar?

[Beetwasher]

I got this little gem from the WP:

"Similarly, the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had retained chemical and biological weapons was one shared by the Clinton administration as well as every major Western intelligence service. That conclusion is now being challenged, but it hasn't yet been disproved; nor has it been established that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program."

--snip--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62128-2003Jul15.html?nav=hptoc_eo

Fine, I'll except that reasoning, IF they can disprove that Bush is a liar and establish that Bush didn't lie. They can easily do that by showing me the WMD's. Any time some moron brings up this type of reasoning, Dems should retort w/ the same argument applied to Bush. I'm fully aware of fallacious nature of the argument, but if that's how they want to play it, then let's play that way. Disprove Bush lied, show me the WMD's!!

[Sagan]

1. ha ha ha! Good one...

I bet McClellan would blow a gasket over that question..

[underpants]

2. Like I said elsewhere this is like proving a negative

W isn't a liar. Oh really...prove it.

They are trying to turn this around (Ari started this on his last day) and it holds no water. Middle of the road Americans are not going to buy this it comes off as childishness, 'Well they didn't ever disprove what he said'. W sold himself as a straight shooter ( :eyes: ) whichhe isn't and people are now seeing that. People don't like being lied to.

[Cocoa]

3. how about this...

another Duer, grendelsuncle, brougt up a good point about the yes/no approach the whores are taking: can you prove Bush is lying, yes or no?

How about turning it around, he says, ask them: Is EVERYTHING Bush tells us absolutely accurate, yes or no?

Does Bush EVER tell us things that aren't so, yes or no?