When will the liars apologize?

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

 

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.

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!

 

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

 

Not necessarily, Jamie.

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

 

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.

 

Thank you for that.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Whew!

Jamie

 

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

 

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