A minor quibble...

In his column "Dissent or Dishonor?", Bill O'Reilly writes:

So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq — so reads conclusion 83 of the Senate report.

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. They were wrong and had no proof to begin with. They are guilty of a slander, a dishonorable act.

I added the emphasis. Present tense versus past tense. If I accused Bush last year of lying about Iraqi WMD, just this week the Senate report (part 1) came out, how can I be accused of dishonor? If I accuse him now, you can make that statement now.