Yesterday there was a flurry of outrage on Digg, across the internet and even from people I respect like Keith Olbermann about President Bush "sacrificing" golf for the Iraq war. All of you should be ashamed.

Take Keith Olbermann for example: conservatives will criticize him as a blatant liberal but the basic facts are that even when he takes sides he is far more fair and balanced in his actual reporting than anyone on the network that uses that euphemism as their slogan. Sean Hannity & co. actually continue to insist that Climate Change (aka Global Warming) doesn't exist and is a myth perpetrated by a vast left-wing conspiracy that hates capitalism (and I am guessing supports communism? It's the new Red Scare! Like the old one, but now with 95% more imaginary!)

But when Olbermann goes off on a tirade (part1, part2) which is mostly on-target, the factually important pieces of his message (all the things Bush actually did do horribly wrong) are largely drowned out for many Americans because the basis for that tirade is so ridiculous. Bush was asked "What's the doomsday scenario" if we pull out of Iraq early. Bush's answer: A terrorist attack. What's the problem with this statement that has everybody up in arms? Bush believes Iraq is an important front in the war on terror. I completely disagree, as does Mr. Olbermann but the problem is that Mr. Olbermann frames Bush's answer to a "doomsday scenario" question as Bush saying "The election of a Democratic President could 'eventually lead to another attack on the United States'"

That's a complete and utter misrepresentation of what Bush said, and I'm telling you that as a former Bush supporter who came to realize what a monster that man is and how badly he and his policies need to be removed from power — as someone who has called for the impeachment of both Bush and his undead Vice-President, you do a great disservice to the important facts within your tirade by including, in fact starting off with, a blatantly disingenuous representation of the facts. It turns off everyone outside of your base audience and the remainder of your message is lost on deaf ears.

The same is true of the golf remark. Bush was specifically asked why he doesn't play golf anymore and his answer was that he didn't want some mother who's son had just been killed in Iraq to see the President on TV playing golf, that he felt it would be insulting to those families and send the wrong message. Olbermann, Diggers and apparently half the internet decided to misrepresent that as Bush claiming he had made some grand sacrifice.

If the question was, "How has the Iraq war affected you personally" and his answer was, "I can't play golf anymore" then I would be happy to jump on board the bandwagon of outraged people who will point to this remark as proof of how despicably detached this man is from the war he's created, but the question was, "You haven't been golfing in recent years, is that related to Iraq?"  With a lead-in like that exactly what answer would you prefer the man give? Is he supposed to make something up on the spot about how he'd love to be out there every week but he hurt his wrist?

This is exactly the kind of factual misrepresentation the people on the left always accuse (usually correctly) the people on the right of doing, and when moderates who were leaning left see that kind of behavior they tend to back off and rethink their position because they're afraid maybe they've been listening to left-wing fanatics who try to trick people into supporting their views by spreading lies.

Bottom line: When you make things out to be more than they are, you lose credibility — and that's the last thing the people on the left need because it could end up costing this country dearly in November.