Go over any post I've done, and look at the sources I used. They are widely varied, from hundreds of different places, and hopefully, sources that I've judged to be fairly reliable, or when I'm concerned about that, multiple sources.

When I post a link to a blog, or some other opinionated source, it's usually because somebody has written an opinion better than I could, or when dealing with matters of fact, because they have collected the data and links so I don't have to.

I also try to link to original material, instead of simply settling for some news story about a document, filtered through the news writer's kidneys.

Lindy's sources have a lousy record of credibility. Try and imagine how long it would be tolerated if I posted things on the Space Board linked to Richard Hoagland's site.

Bowser uses MSNBC and BBC almost exclusively, which is admittedly better than Lindy's sources in matters of fact (I use them myself on occasion), but these are very highly biased. The equivalent would be if I posted links to Fox News all the time. Try and remember the last time I linked to Fox News.

And try and find a time when I have taken a statement of Bush's as a valid factual source on its own. When I have linked to Bush speeches it's because I need to prove a quote, or show that he said something one way and not another. Not because he said "the sky is green," and that's enough for all us Bush-toadies. So what you think of Bush's credibility doesn't really matter in this context.

My opinions on things like WMD, al Qaeda in Iraq, and other issues come from a lot of other sources. Not the White House. In some cases, like the Iraqi trailers a while ago, I did much of the research on my own.

Now, if you want to extend your skepticism on sources past Bush to all government sources, like the DoD, Commerce Department, BLS, or other places I've taken hard data from, I can't do much about that.