Sorry, buddy, but "you show how they are lies" is not how debate is done. Burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant.
But the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
At least we agree on that. For that reason, I have asked Mudwhistle to PROVE his allegations regarding Obama, who is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." I doubt he can do so, just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong could not prove the Duke lacrosse players guilty. Even without compelling evidence, Nifong persecuted the players for his own purposes, just as Mudwhistle and others seem to have done. That's why it's essential to follow the evidence.
During the Spanish Inquisition the accused had the virtually impossible task of disproving allegations, which is what Foxfyre has asked for. Medieval societies put the burden of proof on the accused, while civilized societies put the burden of proof on the accuser.
Whether misrepresentation is innocent misinformation or intentional disinformation depends on the response of accusers when challenged. Some accusers have the integrity to admit they were wrong when actual evidence is lacking. Others, however, are useful idiots for disinformation campaigns when they accept and propagate pundit opinion as fact, even when substantiating evidence turns out to be fabricated (e.g., the Iraqi threat to America).