When will the liars apologize?

[Pastor Larry]

This past week, the truth that many have known for a long time has been publicly verified. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the White House was not responsible for the leak of Valerie Plame's name. It came from outside the WH, and the person responsible is no longer employed.

Where are the many who accused Rove, Cheney, and the WH of lying to offer their apologies? You guys lied ... You said something that turned out to be untrue, when in fact you had knowledge that it was untrue when you claimed it was true. (Remember, that is the standard of lying you hold Bush to, so you must hold yourself to it, or apologize for being a hypocrite with a double standard as well.) So if Bush lied for saying something he believed to be true which later turned out apparently not to be true (WMDs), are you not also guilty of lying for saying something that later turned out not to be true?

You had people telling you it wasn't true. You simply chose to disregard them and say what you wanted to say anyway because you had a political end in mind of attacking Bush. And Bush's comments actually had something at stake, the lives of many if he was correct. Your comments were born out of personal dislike or hatred, and political ends. Your comments are far more shameful because there was nothing at stake, except a chance to hammer the administration. Now you have egg on your face, which could have been avoided had you simply listened to begin with when people said it wasn't true.

So the question is, Will you apologize for your lies?

Here are just a few of the many who lied about Rove. Others could be cited as well.

Plame was outed by Libby in 2002. (Daisy, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=9290&highlight=rove+plame)

Before Rove's name ever came up the Whitehouse is on the record as saying that whoever leaked the CIA information should be prosecuted, does their position change now that they know it was Rove leaking to the press? (JGrubbs, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=8713&page=2&highlight=rove+plame

First he says he will fire anyone in his administration found to have leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. Then when it comes out that Rove did that, (Magnetic Poles, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=8744&highlight=rove+plame)

FTR, I don't believe these people actually lied. They were certainlyway more dogmatic than they should have been. They refused to listen to the people who knew. Their personal distaste and political ideals led them to say things that were driven by emotion rather than known fact, and it later turned out to be untrue. But the problem is that these are some of the same people who claimed that Bush lied because he said there were WMDs when there later turned out apparently not to be WMDs. So, as the old saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accused Bush of lying, then you must stand up and face the fact that you lied to.

 

[pinoybaptist]

here goes....

well, if I had been one of those, PL, and you seem to have a long memory, then I apologize.
Otherwise, I will also be waiting.

 

[Jack Matthews]

This is just the Bush administration's spin on this issue, the "approved copy." The facts in this case will be permanently obscured. There may be people who have been put up to take the fall, but the liars club at the top, which includes Bush, Cheney and Rove, are not innocent, of this or of any one of the hundreds of other lies they have told.

And since when does a conservative Christian rightist start believing the media?

 

[El_Guero]

I was not one . . .

But, I would like an apology as well . . . There has been too much calling of the President a liar when he was not . . . that is a serious lack of respect for the office (which we are biblically commanded to give).

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I was not one . . .

But, I would like an apology as well . . . There has been too much calling of the President a liar when he was not . . . that is a serious lack of respect for the office (which we are biblically commanded to give).

No one is owed an apology except anyone who proves to be falsey acused. Did someone accuse you, EG or Larry, of outing Plame?

Secondly, one can respect the office of President of the United States without respecting the person occupying it.

 

[hill]

I agree with you taking these folks to task Pastor Larry. They did what you say they did. They won't apologize because that is not in the heart of a GWB hater.

Plame had long been out from the cold and as such was never at risk of being outed. She had been clear over 2 or more years longer than the law protecting her then covered.

 

[El_Guero]

MP

I have been repeatedly told that the President of the USA has lied to me.

If that is not true, then what I was told was not only a lie but also gossip and sin.

I deserve an apology, God demands repentance, and the President of the USA deserves an apology.

But, I guess that what you are saying is that we should not expect one.

Regards

Wayne

No one is owed an apology except anyone who proves to be falsey acused. Did someone accuse you, EG or Larry, of outing Plame?

Secondly, one can respect the office of President of the United States without respecting the person occupying it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is just the Bush administration's spin on this issue, the "approved copy." The facts in this case will be permanently obscured. There may be people who have been put up to take the fall, but the liars club at the top, which includes Bush, Cheney and Rove, are not innocent, of this or of any one of the hundreds of other lies they have told.

Obviously ... whenever the truth isn't what you want to hear, it has to be a lie, right? You do realize how silly you sound, don't you? There is no doubt that politicians lie, including Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, and all the rest. This just doesn't happen to be one of those times.

No one is owed an apology except anyone who proves to be falsey acused.

So it's okay to tell lies as long as you don't tell them to the person you are telling them about???? mmmmm ... that will take some time to process.

This sounds even sillier than Jack's answer, if that is possible. When you lie, you owe an apology to all who heard it, and especially to those who were accused.

But in direct response to your assertion, will you send Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and others an apology since they are the ones you falsely accused? That was, after all, your standard for who deserves an apology. Were you just making that up to avoid giving an apology here, or do you really believe that?

 

[carpro]

Here are just a few of the many who lied about Rove. Others could be cited as well.

Plame was outed by Libby in 2002. (Daisy, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=9290&highlight=rove+plame)

Before Rove's name ever came up the Whitehouse is on the record as saying that whoever leaked the CIA information should be prosecuted, does their position change now that they know it was Rove leaking to the press? (JGrubbs, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=8713&page=2&highlight=rove+plame

First he says he will fire anyone in his administration found to have leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. Then when it comes out that Rove did that, (Magnetic Poles, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=8744&highlight=rove+plame)

FTR, I don't believe these people actually lied. They were certainlyway more dogmatic than they should have been. They refused to listen to the people who knew. Their personal distaste and political ideals led them to say things that were driven by emotion rather than known fact, and it later turned out to be untrue. But the problem is that these are some of the same people who claimed that Bush lied because he said there were WMDs when there later turned out apparently not to be WMDs. So, as the old saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accused Bush of lying, then you must stand up and face the fact that you lied to.

I don't believe they lied.

They may have let their political agendas hinder their judgement and sense of fairness, but that's not lying.

If they continue to espouse the same beliefs about the Plame affair in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it might call into question qualities of character other than judgement. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So it's okay to tell lies as long as you don't tell them to the person you are telling them about???? mmmmm ... that will take some time to process.

Not what I said. Now, where is MY apology from you? Of course, nice person that I am, I assume you misread or misunderstood me, rather than accuse you of lying, unlike what you do to others.

But in direct response to your assertion, will you send Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby and others an apology since they are the ones you falsely accused? That was, after all, your standard for who deserves an apology. Were you just making that up to avoid giving an apology here, or do you really believe that?

Nope. I didn't make assertions in the Plame affair, other than perhaps some personal opinion. I also believe Bush is a liar about other issues, and his own words have convicted him. He owes ME an apology!

 

[JamieinNH]

I don't believe they lied.

They may have let their political agendas hinder their judgement and sense of fairness, but that's not lying.

If they continue to espouse the same beliefs about the Plame affair in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it might call into question qualities of character other than judgement. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm stunned! I am finding myself actually agreeing with Carpro.... Does this mean I am turning into a Republican?!?


I agree with you, I don't think people down-and-out-righted lied. I mean there were a ton of people that believed, or was led to believe these stories.

In Politics and the debates people have, you can go back and find people on the wrong side, it's not always because they lied, alot of the times, in my opinion, it's just because of a bad story.

I am not pointing fingers, but this would serve as a point.. Many people in charge, including the President I believe, said that Saddam had something to do with/was connected with 9-11. That has not been the case, was that a lie? Or just wrong information given to them at the time? He has since said that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9-11.

I think in heated debates and in Politics especially, people read articles and run to conclusions, I don't think that means they are liars per sec.. just misinformed. Like Carpro said, if the news media and all the people that were saying Karl and the others did this continue to say that, then, now they are lying.

Jamie

 

[carpro]

I'm stunned! I am finding myself actually agreeing with Carpro.... Does this mean I am turning into a Republican?!?



Jamie

Not necessarily, Jamie.

I'm not a Republican, either.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not what I said. Now, where is MY apology from you?

Apology for what? I made no statement about what you said. I asked a question, drawn from what you said. Of course, the question marks should have indicated that to you. But face it, your reply was silly.

Of course, nice person that I am, I assume you misread or misunderstood me, rather than accuse you of lying, unlike what you do to others.

I do misunderstand you, I hope. Because what you said was silly. I don't think you meant that, but I don't know how else to take it.

Furthermore, I didn't accuse anyone of lying. Go back and read my original post, where I explicitly stated that I dont' believe they lied. (And then apologize to me for accusing me of accusing someone of lying.) Clearly, the point was to point out the utter foolishness of saying that Bush lied about WMDs. That clearly was not the case. It was a stupid case to try to make. While there are a great many things we might say Bush lied about, or at least wasn't straightforward on, WMDs is simply not one of them, and any thinking person knows that. But some allow their political ideals to get in the way of the truth.

I didn't make assertions in the Plame affair, other than perhaps some personal opinion.

Now you have actually told a whopper, with the proof on the very same page that you tried to get away with it on. I quoted you, and gave the link to it so people could tell I wasn't making it up. You asserted that "Rove did that," meaning outed Valerie Plame. You did not state it as an opinion; you did not offer it as a possibility. You stated it as a fact; the proof is in the first post, with a link to it. Why did you think you would get away with denying it?

You guys never learn. I do my homework. I know what I am talking about. The reason Galatian wasn't listed as one who "lied" about this is because I couldn't find the proof. I am fairly sure that Galatian made the accusation that Rove was the one who outed Plame, but I couldn't find, and since I couldn't, I did not include him. I do my homework and make sure that I what I say can be validated. You should have learned that by now, as long as you have been here. You would do better just to own up to it and apologize and make it go away rather than trying to avoid what all can plainly see.

I also believe Bush is a liar about other issues, and his own words have convicted him. He owes ME an apology!

So do I. But that's not the issue. The issue is about your assertions about Karl Rove and Valerie Plame. You have been proven wrong by evidence on the table.

As I say, I don't think you lied. I think you made a judgment about the evidence that was on the table. It looked bad for Rove. But you assert Bush lied about WMDs, when he did exactly what you did. Now, if you weren't lying, why is a virtually identical situation lying when he does it? That is a double standard, hypocrisy, and you have been caught.

what will you do? Deny it again? Or say "I was wrong."

 

[The Galatian]

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Minneapolis Star Tribune
No vindication on Plame

...
But Armitage's error does not lift the thick layer of Plame-related gunk from the reputations of White House adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney and his ex-chief of staff, Lewis Libby. While Armitage had no anti-Wilson ax to grind, they did.

In fact, Armitage learned about Plame's CIA association from a memo written in response to a request from Cheney's office for information about Wilson. The White House's "get Wilson" effort was already under way. Armitage's slip offered them an opportunity of which they made maximum use.

Novak needed confirmation of Armitage's information. He got it from Rove. Between them, Rove and Libby peddled the story to various Washington reporters. ...

Libby apparently lied about the effort and got caught. The others may not have broken federal law, but they certainly showed, if anyone needed further proof, how low they will stoop to smear a critic rather than argue an issue on its merits.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4158246.html

So the story isn't exactly as the Bush WH has been peddling it. Armitage, who apparently accidentally slipped in talking to Novak, discovered the fact from a memo responding to a request by Dick Cheney asking to obtain personal information on Wilson after Wilson blew the cover off the administration's "Niger yellowcake" story.

Novak went back and asked Rove about it, and Rove was happy to leak it to him, outing Plame and endangering an unknown number of CIA informants.

It turns out that Rove technically broke no law in trying to harm Wilson and incidentally putting our intelligence people at risk, but it was still cowardly and disloyal to America. Libby, of course, in the process of covering up for Rove, did break a law, for which he's now on trial.

 

[Daisy]

I don't believe they lied.

They may have let their political agendas hinder their judgement and sense of fairness, but that's not lying.

Thank you for that.

If they continue to espouse the same beliefs about the Plame affair in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it might call into question qualities of character other than judgement. :smilewinkgrin:

Which same beliefs?

As for overwhelming evidence, it all seems based on the single source, the Newsweek excerpt of Isikoff & Corn's book, Hubris.

See linkie to info on Cheney's part and linkie to WH anti-Wilson efforts.

Fitzgerald's report isn't even out - I believe it isn't due until after the elections.

 

[Daisy]

This is a hoot and a half coming from you, Larry.

This past week, the truth that many have known for a long time has been publicly verified. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the White House was not responsible for the leak of Valerie Plame's name. It came from outside the WH, and the person responsible is no longer employed.

They, apparently, were not the original source for Novak, but it seems Rove was for Mathew Cooper (linkie) and Libby was for Judith Miller, who had the discretion, unlike Novak, not to publish her name. Does the fact that the reporters they outted her to chose not to take the tainted bait, really exonerate them in your eyes?

Where are the many who accused Rove, Cheney, and the WH of lying to offer their apologies?

Who accused them of lying about this?

You guys lied ... You said something that turned out to be untrue, when in fact you had knowledge that it was untrue when you claimed it was true.

You're accusing me of lying with knowledge about Rove and Cheney? That's a lie. I only found out that Rove and Cheney were not Novak's original source recently, I don't know that they were not his confirming source and it seems that Rove was the original source for at least one other. So where is your apology?

(Remember, that is the standard of lying you hold Bush to, so you must hold yourself to it, or apologize for being a hypocrite with a double standard as well.) So if Bush lied for saying something he believed to be true which later turned out apparently not to be true (WMDs), are you not also guilty of lying for saying something that later turned out not to be true?

That's a big if - was he lying about knowing that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program or was he an incompetent manipulated by the neocons? I've said it before and I'll repeat it here, with Bush it's hard to tell. If he is as smart as some people maintain, then I have to go with liar with plausible deniability. His own intelligence (people, not brains) told him the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge yet he chose to include them in his list of evidence. (linkie)

You had people telling you it wasn't true.

That what wasn't true? Were these people credible and did they present evidence that overcame evidence to the contrary?

You simply chose to disregard them and say what you wanted to say anyway because you had a political end in mind of attacking Bush.

Well, that isn't true and you should know it better than most as I always gave wads of citations at your own insistence. In fact, I have you to thank for my checking and double-checking before posting as you would almost invariably accuse me of making things up (not that you ever apologized when proven wrong).

And Bush's comments actually had something at stake, the lives of many if he was correct.

And the lives of many if he was incorrect.

Your comments were born out of personal dislike or hatred, and political ends. Your comments are far more shameful because there was nothing at stake, except a chance to hammer the administration. Now you have egg on your face, which could have been avoided had you simply listened to begin with when people said it wasn't true.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that because I thought Rove and Cheney were likely to have been involved in Plame's outing, that proves that Bush was telling the truth? Your logic does not resemble Earth logic.

So the question is, Will you apologize for your lies?

I have not lied, as you acknowledge at the end of your lengthy, slanderous post. Are you going to apologize for this slander?

Plame was outed by Libby in 2002. (Daisy, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=9290&highlight=rove+plame)

Um, you said I accused Rove and Cheney in your second paragraph - were you lying? Apparently, Libby did out Plame, but not to Novak (linkie).

Before Rove's name ever came up the Whitehouse is on the record as saying that whoever leaked the CIA information should be prosecuted, does their position change now that they know it was Rove leaking to the press? (JGrubbs, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=8713&page=2&highlight=rove+plame

It is particularly egregious to attack your fellow posters who aren't around to defend themselves (no, public figures in the news are not included in that rule, so don't give me that baloney). So, since Rove apparently did leak to the press, if not necesarily Novak, where is the lie or even the mistake?

FTR, I don't believe these people actually lied.

Is that an apology for lying about other people lying?

They were certainlyway more dogmatic than they should have been.

Mote, beam.

They refused to listen to the people who knew.

People like you? Are you claiming you knew? At any rate, none of us made any of this up.

Their personal distaste and political ideals led them to say things that were driven by emotion rather than known fact, and it later turned out to be untrue.

You haven't shown that what I said was untrue, let alone driven by emotion rather than fact. This speculation on other peoples motives leads you malicious accusations.

But the problem is that these are some of the same people who claimed that Bush lied because he said there were WMDs when there later turned out apparently not to be WMDs. So, as the old saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you accused Bush of lying, then you must stand up and face the fact that you lied to.

Well, Larry, from past encounters with you I know not to expect an apology from you.

 

[Revmitchell]

We do not have the option bibically to seperate the man from the office. The man in the office is to be shown the respect of the office. But liberals are going to twist that however they want to.

The hate speach that is constantly spued on this board toward our President and his staff is not characteristic of our Lord and Savior.

What we have here is more worshipping at the alter of dissent, which seems to be a pretty popular God these days.

PS. I did not hear that on Rush Limbaugh

 

[JamieinNH]

Not necessarily, Jamie.

I'm not a Republican, either.:smilewinkgrin:

Whew!

Jamie

 

[Hope of Glory]

are you not also guilty of lying for saying something that later turned out not to be true?

I would say that they were guilty of spreading lies, which I think would be more akin to gossip...

 

[ASLANSPAL]

This is a hoot and a half coming from you, Larry.

They, apparently, were not the original source for Novak, but it seems Rove was for Mathew Cooper (linkie) and Libby was for Judith Miller, who had the discretion, unlike Novak, not to publish her name. Does the fact that the reporters they outted her to chose not to take the tainted bait, really exonerate them in your eyes?

Who accused them of lying about this?

You're accusing me of lying with knowledge about Rove and Cheney? That's a lie. I only found out that Rove and Cheney were not Novak's original source recently, I don't know that they were not his confirming source and it seems that Rove was the original source for at least one other. So where is your apology?

That's a big if - was he lying about knowing that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program or was he an incompetent manipulated by the neocons? I've said it before and I'll repeat it here, with Bush it's hard to tell. If he is as smart as some people maintain, then I have to go with liar with plausible deniability. His own intelligence (people, not brains) told him the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for centrifuge yet he chose to include them in his list of evidence. (linkie)

That what wasn't true? Were these people credible and did they present evidence that overcame evidence to the contrary?

Well, that isn't true and you should know it better than most as I always gave wads of citations at your own insistence. In fact, I have you to thank for my checking and double-checking before posting as you would almost invariably accuse me of making things up (not that you ever apologized when proven wrong).

And the lives of many if he was incorrect.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that because I thought Rove and Cheney were likely to have been involved in Plame's outing, that proves that Bush was telling the truth? Your logic does not resemble Earth logic.

I have not lied, as you acknowledge at the end of your lengthy, slanderous post. Are you going to apologize for this slander?


Um, you said I accused Rove and Cheney in your second paragraph - were you lying? Apparently, Libby did out Plame, but not to Novak (linkie).

It is particularly egregious to attack your fellow posters who aren't around to defend themselves (no, public figures in the news are not included in that rule, so don't give me that baloney). So, since Rove apparently did leak to the press, if not necesarily Novak, where is the lie or even the mistake?

Is that an apology for lying about other people lying?

Mote, beam.
People like you? Are you claiming you knew? At any rate, none of us made any of this up.
You haven't shown that what I said was untrue, let alone driven by emotion rather than fact. This speculation on other peoples motives leads you malicious accusations.

Well, Larry, from past encounters with you I know not to expect an apology from you.

Worth repeating the counter points are that good.:thumbs: