People who honestly, honestly believe that George W. Bush is a malicious liar — that he has willingly deceived the American people with regards to the reasons for our invasion of Iraq — will never be convinced that he is not despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.

Before I enjoin anyone into a post laden with repetitive rhetoric, if I may ask: Why is it so hard for enemies of the administration to even accept the possibility that George Bush may have been wrong? I ask this because I think, if the President made an honest mistake — the ultimate in a chain of honest mistakes — he would have the saving grace of being able to apologize, whereas malicious deception of the American people that has led to war leaves no room for forgiveness.

I’ll give props to Greg. At least he’s honest enough to admit that our President might be in a errant position and not an evil one.

There is a burden on those who accuse our President to produce proof of their indictments of Washington. “Where are the WMD” is not a good enough question. You cannot prove that a person lied about the presence of something by said something’s not being found within an arbitrary period of time that is decided by the accuser. Such as question is abnegated simply by saying “at least not yet. We need to try harder.”

Prove to us, dear opponents, that the Bush administration lied (that’s right, I’m asking for proof of Bush’s “lies”) about the presence of a WMD program in the first place. If your proof consists of the Iraqi scientists who have deceived their own president out of fear that he might use WMD for lunatic purposes, this is proof of an absence of a WMD program; it is not proof of Bush’s deception. Only that he and the intelligence he based his decisions on were wrong. Prove to us that we were maliciously misled about securing our nation, and prove to us that all of the altruistic reasons — as well as the reasons for our national self-interest and security — to have gone to Iraq were lies.

I am not ashamed to admit that there will be a point of adequate proof wherein I may be convinced that Bush lied to the all of us and I would call for accountability. But I am not asking for rhetoric that would challenge my beliefs. I do that every day on my own, and so far the challenges to myself have only strengthed them. I want proof, the kind that true believers cannot handle.

I will not accuse Ted Kennedy of treason as Mark Noonan has. Proof of treason requires proof of direct malice against the country. Ted The Olympic Swimmer’s accusations fall short of treason because the malice is intended towards our president, and any “treasonous” effects are purely accidental. However, I will echo the words of Oliver North when he speaks of responsible speech:

Those who continue to carp and complain about the war defend themselves by saying they have a First Amendment right to do so, but there is an inherent duty of responsibility in the exercise of free speech. Now that terrorists are mastering the manipulation of the media, war critics must consider the consequences that their criticisms may have on their countrymen who are fighting for freedom.

As will I echo, to some degree, Mark Noonan’s as well:

In propriety, Senator Kennedy (and the rest of the President’s political opposition) have a duty to ensure that while they seek the political defeat of the President, the interests of the United States are held to be more important than the particular political fate of any one man, or any political Party. There are thus things which are out of bounds – and Senator Kennedy knows where those boundaries are; he knows, for instance, that the enemy is listening and will take heart if senior members of the United States political establishment are calling the President a liar, or demanding the United States pull out of Iraq. Our enemies, it must be remembered, do not differentiate between Democrats and Republicans – we are all infidel Americans to them and all are fated in their sick ideology for destruction…but they’ll see it as a sign from God that the Great Satan is wracked by dissent, thus giving the forces of Allah the ability to beat the Crusader Army in Iraq.

Indeed there is patriotic dissent. Ted Kennedy’s is nowhere close.