The Usurper:"The only facts I have is the report itself."

Then the question becomes, how reliable is this report?  Who wrote it?  What is this person's history?  Does he/she have an axe to grind against Bush or the Republicans?  Who are the sources? 

You write about his incident as if it were true.  And when asked for proof, assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove!  That is question begging pure and simple.

No.  It's not enough evidence for such a serious charge.  And to build a case with such questionable evidence puts everything else you say in a questionable light.

I am very disappointed in Bush.  I think he failed in many ways as President.  But if he is to be criticized, it can't be because I may dislike him or distrust him.  My criticism must be true or based on truth.  Not a "gut" feeling which could be attributed to bad pepperoni.  Honest, hard, verifiable facts.  Nothing less than that will do.  Hearsay is not evidence.  It's more often closer to a lie than it is the truth.

The Usurper:And can you show me a report where Bush is interviewed where he was asked about the incident where he didn't deny it.?? ;)

The Usurper:   The original article with the quote you cite appeared in the DC Indymedia.   It was submitted by "anonymous."   That's a great source now isn't it?  BTW, anyone can post an article on the site.  Since that is the case, there is no way to check the source.  Where did this anonymous get this info?  The author claims that he talked to three sources that overheard the comment.  Sure.  Who were they?  We can never know.  Doug Thompson just reported it, he's not a witness to what, if anything, was said.

And what about Doug Thompson?  It's his site that carried this questionable quote.  Here are some titles to a few of his other articles:  # Bush's betrayal   # Burn in hell, Mr. President   Americans no longer buy Bush's lies

--many more of the same kind can be found there

Many other sites carried the piece you posted and but this comment sums up the original source nicely: 

12/17/2005 - 14:11:37PM  
BY: Ray
Capitol Hill Blue seems to have a recurring problem with anonymous sources.

I mean, conned for 20 years by the same guy? Doug Thompson should have retired in shame. Obviously he is a gullible mark, and if he doesn't name his "sources" I won't believe a word he says.

Thompson originally retracted the article but then decided to repost it.  He retracted it because it lacked a verifiable source.  One has to wonder why he then decided to repost it and claim that he now "stands by the story."  Maybe his obvious hate for Bush had something to do with that decision.

On one website, this message preceeded the article: 

"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."

  no kidding.  Mr Anonomous is a hard man to track down.  Getting a statement from him seems impossible.

In the end Greg, you'll have to find a more credible story because this one fails the test of truth.  And if you insist that it's true, that will reflect heavily upon you in my view.  Are you going to be one of those that embraces a story simply because you want it to be true (because it fits into your worldview scenario)? 

If this story is untrue (and it most likely is a fabrication) then you have fallen for the very thing for which you warn others.  Time to rethink this one. 

The Usurper: The only facts I have is the report itself.


like the 9/11 report?????

Czuch:  Exactly.  It's like saying, "The only facts I have are in this fake document."