Originally Posted by Honus

I have no idea what we're talking about here. There seems to be this implication that there is reason to think that Frank lied. I don't even know where that comes from. There is mountains of evidence that Bush and his people told specific lies, in addition to making several serious mistakes. You don't have to agree with that conclusion, but I think you have to admit that there is some evidence to support it. There is no such evidence against Frank, is there? What are we talking about?