Well, now, this is certainly interesting. Photographic and documented truth that our President is a big fat liar – not just about the whole WMD state of affairs, but about all the lip service he's been paying to the firefighters, the children's hospitals, the retirees, the education sector... One damn lie after another.

Oh, and in case you're going to start complaining that this was whipped up by some leftist whack job, check out where this is hosted. Yes, it was assembled by Democrats, but it's the Democratic Appropriations Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Bush lies, folks. He lies. Forget the 9/11 tearjerker ads, forget the attack ads, forget the ol' Texas bumpkin charm. Examine his record – it's riddled with awful, horrible credibility gaps so large you could pilot, oh, say, a banner-carrying aircraft carrier through it.

I'm not one of those fanatic leftists who foams at the mouth at any mention of tax cuts or whatever. I'm a registered Republican, for crying out loud. In actuality, I'm a centrist who adamantly believes in the separation of church and state and takes a global view on peace and prosperity. I don't subscribe to this "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" nonsense, I don't believe in his erasure of the line between church and state, and I don't believe that marriage is an inherently Christian practice any more than it can be an inherently Muslim, Buddhist, or even athiest practice. I don't believe that a state has any place to force a church to recognize a marriage, but the state shouldn't be able to force a church not to recognize one either – that's what separation of church and state means.

Oh, and all this fooferall about "civil unions"? They're marriages. If we're getting our panties all up in a bunch about terminology, which seems to be the case, let's go all the way and insist that the only institution capable of conducting marriages is the church, the Christian church. Representatives of the state shouldn't be able to conduct marriages period, if they're an "inherently religious" state of affairs. Call all state-conducted weddings "civil unions", and it'll be equal. Call a heterosexual bond a marriage and a homosexual bond a civil union? Why? What's the point? If you insist that it can't be a marriage because that's what the law says, ask why the law says it. If it goes back to it being a Biblical edict, that's a violation of the separation of church and state, and should be thrown out. I believe saying that a bond between two people of different sexes is X and two people of different sexes is Y is just as discriminatory as saying that a bond between two people of one race is X and two people of another is Y. I don't see any other way around this argument, without resorting to the Bible, which the foundation philosophy of this country explicitly states is not an option.

It's time to call a spade a spade everywhere. Civil unions are marriages, and George W. Bush is a liar. Period.