When will the liars apologize?

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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


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.

 

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.

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?

 

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

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

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?

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

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).

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

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.

 

Mr

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

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

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?

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

That was what the question mark was for.

Your logic does not resemble that of our Earth logic.

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.

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.

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, the CIA was pretty upset about it.

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

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?

 

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