When will the liars apologize?

[Magnetic Poles]

Rove is NOT off the hook, so be careful whom you call "liar".

From Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

But officials at the White House also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence. Karl Rove confirmed to Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and days later offered the same information to Time reporter Matt Cooper.

 

[carpro]

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.

Old news with plenty of innuendo and hopeful conclusions for Cheney haters, but nothing of substance.

Bottom line, Daisy.

No law was broken.

You really should admit you were mistaken and move on.

 

[carpro]

Rove is NOT off the hook, so be careful whom you call "liar".

From Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

Your political prejudices have led you to draw another erroneous conclusion.

Give it up. It's a dead issue.

Further entrenchment on this issue will only make you look foolish.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your political prejudices have led you to draw another erroneous conclusion.

Give it up. It's a dead issue.

Further entrenchment on this issue will only make you look foolish.

Carpro, I am not surprised that you reject Newsweek's report. It is a typical neocon tactic to reject facts that shake up their worldview.

 

[ASLANSPAL]

Carpo we are not laughing at you but what you just said!

Your political prejudices have led you to draw another erroneous conclusion.

Give it up. It's a dead issue.

Further entrenchment on this issue will only make you look foolish.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think it is a dead issue but the right wing noise machine is ramped up to take the heat off of rove when in fact rove is a traitor imho he still
leaked to novak and did nothing to stop it. Lee Atwaters words of repentance to rove will catch up with him and his style of "the end justify the means" style politics. I know carpo he is your hero because he has success for the short term in history wise but he has hurt this great nation ...rove is the inventor of the bush culture that harkens back to
Warren G. Harding and the waste of multi-billions of dollars to cronyism. Americans are very trusting in the beginning and forgiving but rove may be actually destroying the Republican party not preserving it or moving it forward...his politics are based on fear mongering and not solution oreinted. One thing is for certain people are getting very wealthy under this bush culture and it is not the middle class....they are struggling just to keep their heads above water ..and everyone knows without the middle class God has less vessels to help the poor and give those a hand up ..that hand will not be coming from those made rich in the 8 years of bush culture that has hurt this great nation.


Deception from bush will have its consequences yes even from the most powerful man in the world...he is a baby christian who loses the battle of temptation and resorts to his early frat boy days as a crutch and those who enable him and apologize for him ...are only really hurting him.

History has a way of writing itself ...and this story will have a post script it is still in process it is only those who want a premature interuption of history so that he can be let off the hook. I think Lee Atwater will rule the day over rove and his warning to him.

 

[carpro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Your political prejudices have led you to draw another erroneous conclusion.

Give it up. It's a dead issue.

Further entrenchment on this issue will only make you look foolish.

Carpro, I am not surprised that you reject Newsweek's report. It is a typical neocon tactic to reject facts that shake up their worldview.

Wrong again MP. Reread my post.

It's not the article that's the problem, it's your ever hopeful and erroneous conclusions that are the problem.


Here's an interesting view:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/the_real_plame_.html

The Real Plame Conspiracy (UPDATED)
Posted By Froggy

EXCERPT


...Armitage had inadvertantly been the progenitor of a big story that was hurting the President and discrediting a war that he didn't support-so he sat on it. From recent reports we know that he told a few fellow State Department colleagues that he was the leaker so it seems logical that he mentioned it to Colin Powell at some point as well. This morning's Washington Post confirms that Armitage told Powell:

Armitage and two officials he later briefed on his role -- State Department legal adviser William Howard Taft IV and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- each discussed the matter with the FBI and testified before the grand jury, the former colleague said. But Fitzgerald told Armitage in February that he would not be charged with a crime, he said.

While Armitage and Powell were busy enjoying their just desserts, the nation began to turn against the war and our troops. And they said nothing. Fitzgerald continued with the case knowing that there was no intentional disclosure of a secret agent. And they said nothing. A reporter went to jail to protect a source. And they said nothing. Scooter Libby was indicted. And they said nothing ...

If this had been done by a Democrat it could reasonably be described as another liberal putting politics ahead of the country and allowing people's lives to be ruined to get back at an opposition President. What do you call it when members of the President's own Cabinet do it?

 

[Daisy]

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.

We don't know the man apart from his office.

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

Do you consider the hate speech spewed on this board towards perceived liberals 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

I don't know why you would want to silence criticism of our leaders as you seem to. How can we understand the issues if we cannot discuss the issues?

 

[mcdirector]

Lots of speech on this board is not representative of our Lord and Saviour -- regardless of political leanings. IMHO

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

Apparently not since they were all easily debunked. If you were impressed by that smoke and mirror routine, then it is little wonder that you buy into all the conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[The Galatian]

We do not have the option bibically to seperate the man from the office.

Yes, we do. We are to be obedient to our laws, which are the supreme authority in America. Those laws permit, even encourage criticism of our elected leaders. Biblicly, we are straying when we try to suppress dissent.

The man in the office is to be shown the respect of the office.

Officeholders in a free nation are subject to criticism from citizens. If you find that offensive, there are no laws preventing you from finding a nation that suits you better.

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

Characterizing criticism of the government as hate speech is contrary to the truth, and is certainly not characteristic of our Lord and Savior. Stop hiding behind the Bible. It is highly disrespectful to try to force God to serve your political ideas.

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

A lot more common, perhaps than worshipping at the altar of the White House, but apparently we still have a few idolators of that stripe.

 

[Daisy]

Old news with plenty of innuendo and hopeful conclusions for Cheney haters, but nothing of substance.

Fitzgerald seems to have thought Cheney's involvement in the campaign to discredit Wilson was significant, though not illegal.

from Newsweek:

Fitzgerald first alleged that Cheney had questioned whether Wilson's trip was a "junket" in a court filing last month. In that filing, Fitzgerald also asserted that the vice president, acting with the approval of President Bush, had authorized Libby to disclose portions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to rebut some of Wilson's claims.

It wasn't illegal to disclose classified information for political purposes, because Cheney gave himself permission to do it (by declassifing the material). If I recall correctly, Cheney has argued that it is impossible for him to illegally reveal any classified information because his very act of revealing automatically declassifies it.

The ironic thing is that Wilson's report didn't contradict what Bush claimed in his State of the Nation speech - that Iraq had sought yellowcake. The White House should've just pointed that out and let it go (although Iraq's inability to obtain any because of effective international controls might lessen the appearance of imminent threat).

Bottom line, Daisy.

No law was broken.

Lying under oath, obstruction of justice? Or do you mean, not by Cheney? When have I accused Cheney of breaking the law?

You really should admit you were mistaken and move on.

Mistaken about what, specifically? I didn't accuse Cheney of being the outer - I thought he might have been, but I never said that he was.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who accused them of lying about this?

You along with others (see original post for original documentation). It is hard to keep the charade up with the evidence there for all to see.

You're accusing me of lying with knowledge about Rove and Cheney? That's a lie.

Did you read my post? I said I actually didn’t believe you lied. You simply didn’t know. It was clear that I was pointing out the hypocrisy on the part of you and others. You need to understand the purpose of rhetoric. I can remember our past discussions where your obtuseness concerning the use of language was astounding. It is sad to see that it continues and that you charge me with doing something I explicitly said I did not do.

So where is your apology?

For what?

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?

There was evidence that indicated he had a WMD and nuclear weapons program, just as there was evidence that Rove was the source. It turns out that the WMD program apparently didn’t exist, just as it turns out that Rove wasn’t the source. So, if Bush is a liar for saying something for which there was evidence that later proved incorrect, you are a liar for saying something for which there was (less) evidence that later turned out to be incorrect. Either that or you are “incompetent” to use your words. I don’t believe you are incompetent. I don’t believe you lied. I believe you let your political position get in the way of seeing all the facts, and it led you to say some things that have since turned out to be untrue.

Well, that isn't true and you should know it better than most as I always gave wads of citations at your own insistence.

Wads of evidence of what? My assertion you are claiming isn’t true is the exact same assertion that you thanked carpro for. Why not thank me? You let your political position and emotions get involved. What you asserted later has been shown to be not true, apparently. What you appreciate from carpro you hate from me? That shows your bias against me, and I have never done anythign to deserve that from you and you know it. We have had some heated conversations to be sure and I don't mind that. I have never had anything personal against you and apologize if I ever said anything that indicated I did. We have very serious policy differences to be sure. That's fine. But as should have been obvious from my original post, I was simply indicating the absurdity of those who would call Bush a liar on this particular issue (not on others).

(not that you ever apologized when proven wrong).

My standing offer is on the table. If you can prove where I have been wrong, I will apologize. I have certainly made mistakes, and I try to apologize for those as well when I made them. I am not about being wrong. None of us are. The question is who will admit it when they are. I in fact have apologized in the past for things, I believe even to you. Here are a couple of examples.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=7493&highlight=apologize#post7493
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=96253&highlight=apologize#post96253
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=820604&highlight=apologize#post820604

So your statement is clearly wrong. Were you lying? Or simply too lazy to look it up? Are there other options?

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.

First, that wasn't what you said. You did not say that Rove and Cheney were "likely to have been involved." You said, " Plame was outed by Libby in 2002." Turns out that wasn't true. Armitage was the one who "outed" Plame, and it isn't even clear that she was actually "outed."


Secondly, that wasn’t my logic, as you should have been able to tell by simply reading it. If you don't understand the point, don't make it up; just ask. I will explain again.


Here it is:
If you say that Bush lied on teh basis of A, B, and C; then you must also say that Daisy lied on the basis of A, B, and C. The foundational reasons are thhe same ... saying something that later turned out not to be true.



Now, if you want to hold that Daisy didn't lie (which I personally hold), you must also hold that Bush didn't lie about WMDs (which I also hold). The point was consistency in thought process. The point was about the meaning of “lying.” If Bush lied, then you lied. I don’t think either of you did. I think both of you made a mistake because you did not have full knowledge. We still don’t, but it is becoming more clear what the situation was.

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

What slander? I didn’t slander. I pointed out hypocrisy. That’s far different.

Um, you said I accused Rove and Cheney in your second paragraph - were you lying?

I included you in a number of people who accused Rove, Cheney, and the WH. And you did, so, no, I wasn’t lying. I even provided proof.

Apparently, Libby did out Plame, but not to Novak (linkie).

Apparently not. First “outing” implies that she was undercover. There is substantial evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the lack of charges indicates that she was not “outed,” since she was not “in” at that time. Either that or Fitzgerald is overlooking a very serious crime in favor of prosecuting a lesser crime. I don't believe that to be the case. I have a higher regard for Fitzgerald than that. (However, the assertion that he kenw the truth at the beginning and investigated something he apparently already knew the answer to colors that perception differently now.)

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).

You are around to defend yourself. You just did it. This was a totally empty accusation, more of your just reaching at straws. How in the world did you respond if you "weren't around to defend yourself"? Surely you could see how empty that charge was. Or did you just not think before you said it?

So, since Rove apparently did leak to the press, if not necesarily Novak, where is the lie or even the mistake?

He apparently didn’t, which again, is evidenced by the total lack of confirmation and charges, in addition to the fact that Plame was apparently not even “in” to be “outed.”

Is that an apology for lying about other people lying?

Who lied about other people lying?

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

You obviously have a short and selective memory. I have apologized every time that I have been proven wrong, or have mishandled myself egregiously. I proved it, again by simply doing my homework. If you had done yours, you would have never made the false charge that I have never apologized.

I don’t ever recall you apologizing, and you have been shown to be wrong many times.



But in the end, you are simply incorrect. You should just admit it and move on. Don't belabor the point. We all make mistakes. We all overstate the case at times. Some of us admit it; and some do not. You should. It would help things.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you consider the hate speech spewed on this board towards perceived liberals characteristic of our Lord and Savior?

No.

Those laws permit, even encourage criticism of our elected leaders.

Criticism is far different (or should be) than disrespect. Too often, here, it is disrespect, not criticism. That needs to be watched more carefully, IMO. We can have disagreements, even strong ones, without being disrespectful. I am sure that I walk too close to that line myself, perhaps even in this thread. I wanted to make a point about hypocrisy and double standards. I expressly added the line that I did not believe the people I singled out were liars. Some, for some reason, missed that or ignored it. In so doing, they missed the whole point. I am sorry that it turned out as it did. It is pretty consistent that people will defend themselves before they will admit that they overstated an issue or point. That is too bad. Why cannot one say, Hey, it looked like this, but apparently I was wrong? Is that so hard?

I admit early on that I defended some things Bush did. I thought he was headed in the right direction. It has turned out that he has done some silly things, some stupid things. I still respect him as a man and president, but have severe disagreements. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have defended some of the things that he did. I don't think he lied to get us into war. I think he made statements in good faith, and I think the evidence proves that. Yes, some told him the evidence was no good. But as a leader, he made a decision based on what he knew and what he believed. In the end, that's what leaders do. Sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong. But at least he didn't waffle.

This Plame case is but another where people went way overboard, saying some things that simply weren't true, or were overstated. why not just say that? I don't get it.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Mr

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

Bush has repeatedly lied to. He lied about the reason fon invading Iraq. First he claimed it was due to "weapons of mass destruction." That was a lie. Then he said that it was because Iraq had a close tie to 9/11. Then he said it was because Iraq had a close tie to terrorism. Recently in a press conference he was asked about this nd replied "No of course not." He said his tax cuts wouldn't primarily benefit the rich. Of course that was a lie. The real question is what has he told the truth about.

 

[The Galatian]

Criticism is far different (or should be) than disrespect. Too often, here, it is disrespect, not criticism.

A public official is our servant, not our master. He must earn respect, not command it. If he does not do his duties in an honest and effective manner, then he is entitled to no respect.

He is formally the Commander-in-Chief, and as such, is to shown respect for that office by our military personnel, who are subject to his lawful orders. The rest of us are not his subordinates. He is our servant, we are not his.

That needs to be watched more carefully, IMO.

I am much more concerned about the lack of Americanism by some here, who disparage the law, while elevating public servants as though they were our masters.

This Plame case is but another where people went way overboard, saying some things that simply weren't true, or were overstated.

I know. This latest attempt to cover up Cheney's and Rove's role in it was destined to fail. The facts are a matter of public record. They aren't going to jail, but they richly deserve our contempt for them.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, we do. We are to be obedient to our laws, which are the supreme authority in America. Those laws permit, even encourage criticism of our elected leaders. Biblicly, we are straying when we try to suppress dissent.

Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Whether in America or anywhere else God is the supreme authority, not the laws. You will have to pull up the scipture that supports your type of dissent.

Officeholders in a free nation are subject to criticism from citizens. If you find that offensive, there are no laws preventing you from finding a nation that suits you better.

This is a common statement from you. However it is an oversimplification of what you actually do.

Characterizing criticism of the government as hate speech is contrary to the truth, and is certainly not characteristic of our Lord and Savior. Stop hiding behind the Bible. It is highly disrespectful to try to force God to serve your political ideas.

Again criticism of our government is not what you are doing. What you do goes way beyond that. You over simplify your behavior.

It"s not that you disagree or even dissent but how you do it. Your language is hostile, angry, hatefilled, without love or concern for those you "critcize" and you yourself "hide" behind the word "dissent" to accomplish your character assasination of the President of the United States which is unnecessary. I dont agree with all the President does. I am very concerned and disappointed in his stance on our borders and some other issues. I personally would not vote for him again except in the case where the other option is a socialist/communist.

A lot more common, perhaps than worshipping at the altar of the White House, but apparently we still have a few idolators of that stripe.

I dont need to respond to this. It is what it is.

 

[Revmitchell]

A public official is our servant, not our master. He must earn respect, not command it. If he does not do his duties in an honest and effective manner, then he is entitled to no respect.

He is formally the Commander-in-Chief, and as such, is to shown respect for that office by our military personnel, who are subject to his lawful orders. The rest of us are not his subordinates. He is our servant, we are not his.



I am much more concerned about the lack of Americanism by some here, who disparage the law, while elevating public servants as though they were our masters.

Romans 13:1-7
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Scripture says other wise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

A public official is our servant, not our master.

yes and no. He is elected by the people to lead. The president is the chief law enforcement officer. He does have authority.

I am much more concerned about the lack of Americanism by some here, who disparage the law, while elevating public servants as though they were our masters.

Isn't this questionign the patriotism of those who disagree with you? You get upset when someone does that to you, but then you turn around and do it others. That seems inconsistent.

This latest attempt to cover up Cheney's and Rove's role in it was destined to fail. The facts are a matter of public record. They aren't going to jail, but they richly deserve our contempt for them.

Yes, the facts are a matter of public record, and the facts disagree with you. Again, it makes me wonder why it is so hard for you to recognize that and simply say, "I messed up on this one." Do you really not understand that you messed up? That is hard to imagine, but I suppose it could be the case.

 

[Daisy]

You along with others (see original post for original documentation). It is hard to keep the charade up with the evidence there for all to see.

Your documentation fell short of your accusation. You quoted me as saying that Libby outed Plame in 2002, which he actually did, although not to Novak as evidence that I accused Rove and Cheney of lying. That's silly and wrong.

Did you read my post? I said I actually didn’t believe you lied. You simply didn’t know. [**nasty condescension omitted**] It is sad that you charge me with doing something I explicitly said I did not do.

You accused me of unknowingly saying Rove and Cheney lied, the context indicates, about outing Plame. As evidence, you quoted my stating the Libby outed Plame - not only that does not contain a kernal of accusation against Rove and Cheney, it still appears to be true (if Cooper's testimony under oath can be trusted). You explicitly said you didn't do it after you explicitly did it.

For what?

For accusing me of saying Rove and Cheney lied about the Plame affair - that is a lie on your part.

*smip* you are a liar for saying something for which there was (less) evidence that later turned out to be incorrect *snip*

Where have I said Cheney and Rove lied? Are you saying that Libby did was not Copper's original source? Or is there something else that you think I said that was not true? What specifically are you saying that I said without enough evidence?

Wads of evidence of what?

You seem to have forgotten our old discussions on whether WMDs were found or not. Even though you turned out to be mistaken, you refused to admit it until now (that I've seen).

My assertion you are claiming isn’t true is the exact same assertion that you thanked carpro for. Why not thank me?

Because your post was inflammatory, because you accused me by name of lying before you admitted that it was a rhetorical device, because your example was ridiculous and because you're still accusing me - sans evidence - of saying that Cheney and Rove lied. That's why.

You let your political position and emotions get involved.

Who doesn't in a political debate forum? Do you really think your OP was disinterested reason?

What you asserted later has been shown to be not true, apparently.

You accused me of asserting that Cheney and Rove lied - you have failed to show that. The Libby example you used has been shown to be true.

What you appreciate from carpro you hate from me?

Because carpro didn't accuse me of lying in this thread, and I appreciate it. You said you didn't believe it, but only after lying about me, which I do not appreciate.

That shows your bias against me, and I have never done anythign to deserve that from you and you know it.

Hey, you brought my name into to this, called me a liar (before admitting that you didn't believe your own, highly inflammatory claim), accused me of asserting what I have not and demanded an apology from me - now you claim I am biased against poor, put-upon you?

But as should have been obvious from my original post, I was simply indicating the absurdity of those who would call Bush a liar on this particular issue (not on others).

I would think it obvious that when you accuse people - by name - of lying, even for rhetoric, they might take it amiss. I hope that is obvious to you now. And
I'm not convinced that Bush has not lied.

My standing offer is on the table. If you can prove where I have been wrong, I will apologize.

Been there, done that, you wouldn't. I didn't even demand that you apologize for being wrong. The clearest was when you called Galatian rude names but insisted you were not being insulting. After that, I lost interest in your stonewalling.

I have certainly made mistakes, and I try to apologize for those as well when I made them. I am not about being wrong. None of us are. The question is who will admit it when they are. I in fact have apologized in the past for things, I believe even to you. Here are a couple of examples.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=7493&highlight=apologize#post7493

Of course, you may mean something by "point" that is different than what the context indicates. In which case you will complain about my comments, (you probably will anyway ) ... and claim I misread you. If so, then I apologize.

Um, that condescending, conditional thing is your idea of an apology? You are calling that an actual apology? Oh my.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=96253&highlight=apologize#post96253

My comments about the pants debate being "stupid" were a bit over the top. I apologize for the strong statement.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=820604&highlight=apologize#post820604

Sorry about the "sad" comment. I conflated a couple of posters. I apologize. The main point stands.

Hey, I'm impressed - those were real. I didn't know you had it in you.

First, that wasn't what you said. You did not say that Rove and Cheney were "likely to have been involved."

I didn't say I did say it, I said "just because I thought [it]".

You said, " Plame was outed by Libby in 2002." Turns out that wasn't true.

Turns out that it was true - he outed her to Cooper.

Secondly, that wasn’t my logic, as you should have been able to tell by simply reading it If you don't understand the point, don't make it up; just ask.

That was what the question mark was for.

If you say that Bush lied on teh basis of A, B, and C; then you must also say that Daisy lied on the basis of A, B, and C.

Your logic does not resemble that of our Earth logic.

The foundational reasons are thhe same ... saying something that later turned out not to be true.

The problem is with they are not the same. If I said Bush lied solely on the basis that he said something that turned out not to be true you would have a point, BUT...that is not the sole basis; it is necessary but not sufficient. Therefore, your entire rhetorical example falls apart.

Now, if you want to hold that Daisy didn't lie (which I personally hold), you must also hold that Bush didn't lie about WMDs (which I also hold).

No, that doesn't work. First, the example you gave of Daisy saying something which turned out not to be true is false, because what Daisy said was true. Second, you could say that Bush didn't lie if he were merely mistaken - you have not proven that. At best, all you can say is that there is not enough evidence to say whether or not Bush lied. Since he is not here to argue his intentions and knowledge, and we do not have conclusive evidence of his intentions and knowledge, it is a debateable point whether he lied or not. Guess what? This is a Political Debate forum! However, it would seem that there are some who would stifle political debate.

I included you in a number of people who accused Rove, Cheney, and the WH. And you did, so, no, I wasn’t lying. I even provided proof.

How does my truthful statement re Libby accuse Rove and Cheney? It doesn't. You continue to lie about me. I do not expect an apology from you - unless it is insulting, condescending and conditional - ie, bogus (even though I now know that you are actually capable of a real one).

Apparently not. First "outing" implies that she was undercover. There is substantial evidence to the contrary.

Apparently, the CIA was pretty upset about it.

Furthermore, the lack of charges indicates that she was not "outed", since she was not "in" at that time. Either that or Fitzgerald is overlooking a very serious crime in favor of prosecuting a lesser crime. I don't believe that to be the case. I have a higher regard for Fitzgerald than that. (However, the assertion that he kenw the truth at the beginning and investigated something he apparently already knew the answer to colors that perception differently now.)

It seems that Armitage's revelation was unintentional and that Cheney can authorise any leak he choses.

You are around to defend yourself. You just did it. This was a totally empty accusation, more of your just reaching at straws. How in the world did you respond if you "weren't around to defend yourself"? Surely you could see how empty that charge was. Or did you just not think before you said it?

Um, I was referring to JGrubbs as you might have noticed as you used the name with the quote you plucked from nearly two years ago. His last post here was more than a month ago. Is he here to defend himself?

 

[El_Guero]

Carpro

This is a more reasoned response than most.

And honestly it is more reasonable than my response.

Thank you for setting me straight, letting a political agenda shade one's sense of fairness is not by itself lying.

God bless you bro'

Wayne

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: