Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, April 12, 2007

OUTSIDE the WIRE: Synopsis

On April 11th, 2007, I helped organized one of the most heart warming experiences of my entire life. The Washington State University College Republicans and I hosted the movie OUTSIDE the WIRE. This was a story that you would not hear in the news. It was an authentic documentary with the only sources being from that of the troops, their families and friends. Although I consider myself to be an “Ultra-Conservative” that is sometimes biased, I can honestly say that this was the most non-partisan documentary I have ever seen.

The night started out with introduction from the Washington College Republican Federation East Vice Chairman of the College Republicans, Dan Ryder. Dan Ryder’s introduction talked about the amazing background of the movie as well as the possibility of Iraqi Veterans sharing their personal experiences in Iraq and hosting a question and answer session if they were willing.

Various young democrats sitting in the front row rudely interrupted Dan Ryder's introduction before he could finish. The young democrats expressed vivid interest in expressing opinions and producing questions to us, the WSU College Republicans. Dan Ryder and I articulated to the young democrats that no such exchange would take place in any shape or form. I was unequivocal in expressing that this documentary should leave you to derive your own opinions of the troops/war and that the WSU College Republicans did not feel qualified in hosting questions. After all, we did not serve in Iraq.

The young democrats “staged” a walkout upon hearing our truthful and legitimate response. This was a display upon epic proportions of the infantile demeanor of such a group that preaches the freedom of expression, ideas, opinions, etc. Their actions were pusillanimous in nature and a flat out slap in the face to the attendees, our organization, our great country and more acutely speaking, the Veterans of our brave service men and women present. They are a sickening disgrace. A classic display of uncouth trash.

Approximately 130 people showed up for the screening; there was only standing room in the last few minutes before the movie started. The nonchalant faces of the attendees turned to awe and captivation as soon as the movie started. It was apparent that many of the students had never seen this side of the war. The stories from the Marines produced goose bumps, goose bumps of pride. They reminded everyone of where we came from, where we are and the future of where we could be. The underlining message of the movie was that “freedom was not free” and that they, our armed forces, are fighting for us. We all should be so proud, so fortunate, of our heroes then and now. Let us never forget their sacrifice. God bless America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Three Iraqi Veterans came up to speak following the movie. The captivated attendees asked questions pertaining to the movie and war. “Was the movie an accurate example of what is really going on over there?” One Vet replied with, “Yes, I think this was probably the most accurate example of what is going on over there.” The Vets also dismissed assumptions that the troops were not getting the equipment that they needed. One question that never came up was “can you support the troops if you don’t support the war?” After the question and answer session ended a Vet replied, “Absolutely not, how can you support someone if you don’t support what he or she is doing?” In all, the Vets painted a positive picture of Iraq.

Personally, it was an honor to be amongst heroes. It was one of the most heart-warming experiences of my entire life. If you would like more info on the movie please contact me or the link below:

http://www.outsidethewire.com

Daniel F Schanze
WSU College Republican Political Action Chairman
dschanze@mail.wsu.edu
dannyschanze@mail.boisestate.edu
208-891-5004

28 comments:

April E. Coggins said...

I am absolutely stunned that the MOSCOW-Daily News didn't have a story in their paper. If ten Vietnam era hippies hold a protest in Moscow's Friendship Square, they get front page news, with very helpful pictures. Meanwhile, an actual event in Pullman is ignored because it might cause controversy.
Mark my words, tonight's debate among Moscow residents regarding Whitman County and Pullman development will get more press than anything actually happening in Pullman.

Pullman needs it's own newspaper.

Tom Forbes said...

It just didn't cause the right (I mean LEFT) kind of controversy. Don't forget, a Daily News reporter was at PARD's union-sponsored "sweatshop" forum and wrote a very favorable story (without mentioning PARD's involvement, because, after all, they have NOTHING to do with any labor unions.)

Tom Forbes said...

Danny, don't forget, the Young Primadonnacrats were all for protecting vets from the evil Cathy McMorris last November. But last night, when they had a chance to actually hear from some vets, they turned tail and ran. What does that tell you?

Daniel F Schanze said...

It tells me that those young democrats and other people like them are destroying our country. These are the same people that say "Support Our Troops", but put numerous pairs of shoes in the middle of campus displaying the "failed" war. They are a cancer that needs to be treated. I am sure that the WSU College Republicans are willing and able to fill them a prescription of clarity. God bless those fighting for you, for me, ...for us; God speed....

Tom Forbes said...

As usual, April nailed it.

Today's Daily News has the Whitman County reporter covering the debate by two Idaho residents held at the University of Idaho last night on development in the state of Washington.

There is also another story about a documentary that was shown in Moscow last night on the uber-liberal-friendly subject of colelcting bicycles for African villages.

For the record, Amy Gray, the Washington education reporter for the Daily News has told me and the CRs that she was unable to attend due to a conflict. That's perfectly undestandable. But it seems to me that the Daily News has more than one reporter and could have covered "oustide the Wire" if they had wanted to. But no one else showed up either, not the Evergreen, the Tribune, or KLEW TV.

It ultimately doesn't matter. Thanks to the Internet, this story is getting out to thousands more people than read the Daily News or Evergreen.

Truth said...

Ah good, some young dems bashing. you know its funny, I consider myself a conservative and next to the people on here I look fully liberal.

I'm guessing that few, if any, CRs actually stopped by the young dems table to ask what the shoes were for. It was remember the fallen. How dare they do something which remembers the fallen while posting numbers of people dead. Such america-hating liberals.

Out of curiosity, why didnt the CRs have a debate after the movie. While it was interesting to hear the veterans answer questions that could have been preceding or following a debate. What's so wrong with the exchange of ideas and opinions?

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

No one is bashing the YD's. Their actions spoke louder than words. How come the YD's didn't put the 400,000+ pairs of shoes out on the Mall to remember the fallen US soldiers of WWII? Your assumptions are blind and wild. You should be ashamed. You say you went to the movie, but you still ask why didn't we hold a discussion? Two things that you could have done: 1. Actually listened to the introduction that we had at the movie. 2. Open your eyes and read this blog, this post.

chrissy said...

Umm... I'm pretty sure the reason the YDs didnt put out 400,000+ pairs of shoes is twofold 1)they want to make sure that people remember and recognize what is going on now and 2)it probably would have been hard to get 400,000+ pairs of shoes. Furthermore telling me I should be ashamed when I point out that putting shoes on the mall dosent make someone a cancer (as Daniel stated) just seems, well stupid. And, in case you were wondering, The only thing I am ashamed about is that my Republican party has been hijacked by people who have betrayed the conservative ideal.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

"Truth":"I'm guessing that few, if any, CRs actually stopped by the young dems table to ask what the shoes were for. It was remember the fallen. How dare they do something which remembers the fallen while posting numbers of people dead. Such america-hating liberals."

Yeah, sure. A virtual body count of our fallen service members put on display in the midst of the war, meant to underscore and sensationalize their deaths, is just the same as a memorial plaque or some similar monument to the memory of our service member's deeds. Not at all designed to sap morale, no...

"Truth":"Such america-hating liberals."

Apparently.

So... any plans to put your name behind your words?

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

I am going to have to defer my answer to Paul's^^^^^^^^

Chrissy and "Truth" got owned.

Tom Forbes said...

Anonymous "conservative," The CRs never advertised this event as a "debate." Why haven't the YD's had a debate? What about the ASWSU? This was strictly advertised as "the Iraq War you won't see on the evening news." that is EXACTLY what the audience got. There was no politics. The CRs made no statements either in support or opposition to the war.

The politics have come form you and "nic" and "chrissy." And that's all the YD's "empty boots" demonstration was as well: playing politics with the sacrifices made by brave young men and women.

The YDs storming out made that statement loud and clear. Last October, they were out holding up signs on Grand Avenue asking voters to boot out Cathy McMorris out of office because she didn't "support vets," yet they could not be bothered to actually hear real vets speak. They were apparently too gutless to be confronted by their own hypocrisy.

Speaking of the "boots," one of the vets wondered aloud why there was no similar display of drunk driving victims, homicide victims, or aborted fetuses, all of which on an annual basis greatly outnumber the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq in the last 4 years.

Nic said...

uhhh... when did I bring politics into this?

voiceofthemajority said...

The Yd's and "truth" use typical liberal approach to an issue, they fight with emotions and false notions, such as, you didn't stop by their table or calling someone’s point stupid. A typical elitist attitude taken on by the left, where they always consider themselves the better person.

I happened to stop by the table and exposed the hypocritical message they were spreading. I ask how can you support the troops, when you don't support what they are doing or why would you symbolize what the enemies have done (shoes representing how many soldiers they have knocked off) if you support them? I called this out on the YDs and ask them why you would put the number of troops who have died. Their response was giving me a CD, Iraq for sale,” and how corporations have taken advantage of Iraq. My next question was “sure things have not gone the best and bad things might have occurred, but is that cause to waive the white flag and give up. The truth is their support the troops is just cover to hide their emphatic anti war belief and belief that US is never right and should be ashamed. All conversations from their side were of that of give up and go home and everything will magically be fine in the world.

Furthermore, they would not engage into debate with me. The YDs asked for debate when they did their demonstration while we ask people to listen at our documentary. The response I got from YDs when I brought issues such as the timeline and other hypocritical issues of their party was "I don't agree with all the view of my party." I asked why don't you have a sign saying we don't support the time table on the your table. I came to the conclusion that they didn't want to step on my toes, so they took a stance that more supports me to try to wane me toward their baseless!!!!!!!!! views. John Kerry/liberals flip flop like crazy it seems.

I find it hypocritical that only they will debate when they feel like it, but will not debate or take a stance when they are running their own show. In addition, if we had a discussion afterwards they would of brought up off topic things up and somehow got back to the fence or how corporations take advantage of the war. These subjects would have had nothing to do with the message of the documentary. I think Alex said it best, “They lower you their level of thinking and beat you with experience.”

Devil's Advocate said...

I actually have to agree with Paul on this one... I know I know don't faint... But here is the deal if someone or group holds an event and it is as advertised then, so be it. Don't go to someone else's event and demand discourse, instead after the event ask if a discussion can be held at another time. If the CR's refuse to join any discussion at that time have your own event and be sure that the news outlets know that they refused to participate... But to end discussion before discussion has an opportunity to even begin is empty and meaningless. This is kind of what I heard the Latino organizations did to the CR's before the "Fence." They asked if the CR's would do a forum, at a later date. I don't know what their (The CR's) answer was but I would assume that both sides are still in discussion working out time and place... That sort of thing. But in this particular case YD's should have at least watched the movie to get talking point to argue against... Am I right?

Sutra said...

First off, I was one of students that protested the lack of discussion at the Outside the Wire event. I would just like to inform everyone that the protest was not a YD event, even thought there were YD members participating. We are just students that have been thought that democracy is built on debate. Every single week the Progressive student union of WSU hosts a political documentarily. And afterward we talk about the issues that have been brought up. Not everyone agrees and the discussion can get really heated sometimes. But that is ok because that is democracy. We were just disappointed that the CR’s event didn’t respect that American principal.

PS. Many of us have seen the movie before via the Internet in order to prepare the nonexistent debate.

Tom Forbes said...

Pure theatrics, that's all the YD walkout was. A "debate" was never advertised or promised by the CRs.

I don't know what would have been "debated" anyway. It was a totally non-political event. George W. Bush was never mentioned once. Neither were "weapons of mass destruction," "faulty intelligence," "blood for oil," or any of the other nonsensical mantras the liberals spout constantly. The questions from the audience all had to do with experiences of serving our country in Iraq. THAT, my friend, is what "democracy" is all about. This was real life with guys that have been-there-done-that, who were fighting for your right to have your little "progressive" film club. What could you possibly have added to the discussion?

You've embarrassed yourself enough already. Quit while you're ahead.

Daniel F Schanze said...

It is to my very recent knowledge that the movie is not streaming on the internet. Please provide a link to back up your claim, because if you actually watched the movie I think your tone would be slightly different. Moreover, how did you prepare for the "nonexistent" debate? I assume you served in Iraq, so clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, you are an expert on the happenings over there. You obviously weren't listening to our introduction and that is very unfortunate.

p.s. I laughed when you used respect in your last sentence; if you read my blog again I am sure you can guess why.

Daniel F Schanze said...

Tom, your descriptions of the confused are priceless. They are forever framed in history. Although... I do have to disagree with you on your last thought. I know "they" are not ahead. The CR's have dominated the news all of this year. We have been the most pronounced group on campus. We are front page some where every time we do something... (you and the WHOLE Nation knows are rep). The only thing I have really seen them do all year was doing that absurd walkout at our movie. Their emotion and feeling based argument is like Charman Ultra toilet paper (fluffy/feely), it's only good for wiping your ass. Like the great Alex Williams said, liberals are idiots.

voiceofthemajority said...

Hey, hey, only I can use Alex William quotes in my responses.

Other than that, I am going to call out Miss Sutra out as a liar. You never watched movie and you know it. You are doing what my last post stated, you try to make yourself appear better than the other i.e. you are better than the rest of us because your progressive student union allows debate. Or even better the YDs were part of it, but you were not with them. You have to be kidding me, you were with them, but once again trying to take the high road. Do not come on here and claim you watched the movie. If you watched it, you would see there is no debate on what the soldiers have to say . You wanted discussion so you could spin and turn things to best fit your perception of reality It is like Tom said there was the facts in this move and not some political mongering.. . “You want the truth, but you can’t handle the truth.” I reminded of famous quote for you guys wanting debate, "they lower the discussion to a lower level and beat you with experience."

Truth said...

Tom (and I suppose all actually),

I have a question and I really don't mean for it to be an attack in any way, just a question. In one of my political science courses we've talked extensivly about pre-Iraq intelligence. As part of it we've had to read a number of books including most recently State of War by James Risen. In his book he uses interviews with a number of former and current CIA and White House officials to make the case that prior to the Iraq war the intelligence was...sketchty. (Really the question is coming, I just wanted to preface it with my motive for asking).

Clearly we all want to believe that President Bush did not lie to the American public, and I believe that to some extent he did not. My question to everybody here however is do you think the president did cherrypick intelligence (or if not that perhaps not grill the CIA enough on Iraq) prior to the invasion?

The reason I ask is like I said in part Risen's book but also just because from what I have followed there has been no mention of WMDs, and it seems like the "slam dunk" links to Al Qaeda did not exist until after the invasion, and while I don't think that necessarily means pull out of Iraq I do also believe that the President was not as truthful as he could have been and I was curious if those here share some of those sentiments or hold different ones or what, again just curious.

Devil's Advocate said...

Though I disagree with the tactic that the YD's used I do understand the sentiment. The problem is with the administration not the soldiers. George absolutely lied in my opinion, but I don't think he knew he was lying. He was merely saying what he was told to say by his handlers. Not since Nixon or Kennedy has there been an administration that will have inspired this many "FBI" secrets. Someday they will all come out...

voiceofthemajority said...

I will answer your question for you, ever heard of Desert Fox? It was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors. Weapon inspectors were not allowed in at this point to check on his WMDs, so we bomb the bastard. Do you honestly think he has some change of conscience and got rid of his chemical weapons. Hell NO!! He move them out before the war started, even his defected Generals have said this. I myself have seen first hand some of the weaponry found in Iraq and they found all the part to a major chemical weapon, but didn't find a whole one.....hmm sounds like dissembling and shipping out. In addition, a nuclear bomb has a unique switch, which is only used in this type of bomb. The US injected one into the black market and guess where it ended up at? Iraq.

Addressing if Bush pushed intelligence, if he did, who cares, Senate and congress members had access to the same intelligence and that has been proven. When did we become a country where I cannot read up on what a person has said? Bush has been shown repeatedly that these democratic accusations of lying are completely false, just look at the Valerie Plaim incident. Truth, I hope you are not one of these people who are advocating we do something about Darfur because Saddam butchered 16,000 a people a year on average, has direct ties to Hitler, and violated 48 UN resolutions. It is a joke for anyone to sit here and say in hindsight that we should have not gone into Iraq. There was ample evidence to suggest he had WMDs and was a serious international security threat. Iraq did attack us before the war and in fact fired upon our plain on 9/11 that were enforcing a no fly zone. IF we didn’t invade Iraq, the UN would have been rendered as useless like the League of Nations. What you should bring up in your class are those on the security council who voted against the US, but were involved in the UN oil for food program. I say this because these countries had significant business with Iraq and didn’t want these lucrative and very corrupt relations, full of kickbacks, to end. If you want to blame someone for pre-war intelligence blame Russia, France, and Germany who were corruptly involved with Saddam.

Tom Forbes said...

Truth, I will try to answer from own experience. I did not serve in the military, but for 12 years I worked for the Pentagon, first in counterintelligence and later in weapons systems planning and procurement.

First and foremost, intelligence is an art, not a science. There have been major military intelligence failures since the Trojan War. Intelligence analysis involves people making guesses, and people make mistakes. When you combine error-prone humans with the infighting and politics that go on in Washington, DC, there will be failures.

Did President Bush have a hidden agenda in Iraq that made him ignore or exaggerate intelligence on WMDs? Maybe. But remember, the vast majority of Congress, including Democrats agreed with him and voted to go to war.

But that is all pointless now. We are at war. What purpose does it serve to call for Bush's impeachment? Did the Republicans call for Roosevelt's impeachment folowing the intelligence disaster at Pearl Harbor? Did Congress set a timeline for withdrawal after the intelligence faliure at the Battle of the Bulge?

It is useful to criticize decisions made in war in order to learn from our mistakes. It does not help the country, however, to criticize decisions made in war merely to score political points or attack a particular leader.

Yes, we should find out all we can about pre-war intelligence failures to make sure they don't happen again. But you don't stop fighting a war simply because mistakes are made, because mistakes are always made in war.

What we need now is a strategy for victory, not excuses for defeat. The stakes in Iraq are too high to walk away.

Truth said...

Tom, you are correct in saying intelligence is an art and not a science clearly. However, there is considerable evidence that has been presented which indicates the use of incorrect intelligence and the refusal to admit how sketchy our intelligence really was in the buildup to the war. Now I am not saying that we should impeach Bush, it won't happen so we should all move on. However, I do think that to call claims of faulty intelligence "nonsensical mantras the liberals spout constantly" is incorrect, especially considering there have been people of both conservative and liberal political backgrounds who have made the same claim.

As to voice of the majority, I also think its probably a bit of a oversimplification to claim that Russia, France, and Germany voted against UN action in Iraq because they were possibly involved in kickbacks. Supposing there were kickbacks in these countries (and there may be, but I cant think of anything which has said that right now, and I don't like claiming things I can't show are true) it is likely that they did not reach to the top of those countries governments, which were the ones preventing support for UN action. Furthermore, I think that as both Tom and I have said it is very possible, and indeed quite likely that a good portion of the pre-war intelligence that Bush presented was false. Again I'm going off of Risen's book as he goes through and notes how much of the intelligence we used prior to the war was based off of very sketchy and unreliable sources, something which was known not only to the US but to much of the international community.

All I'm saying is there were reasons (many of which have been vindicated) for those countries not supporting UN action. I would encourage people to read Risen's book (its pretty short) so they can make their own decisions.

Tom Forbes said...

Truth, everything you say about false intelligence may be true. But again, what difference does it make now? Wars have been started for much more specious causes. But once started, wouldn't you agree a war has to be won?

Allow me to quote from Senator McCain's speech last week:

"In the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, and unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. We are trying to do so now. Responsible political leaders - statesmen - do not add to the burdens our troops carry. That is what Democrats, intentionally or not, have done by failing to provide them with the resources necessary to succeed in their mission. Every day that passes without the necessary funds appropriated to sustain our troops, our chances of success in Iraq dwindle and our military readiness declines further. We have sent the best Americans among us to fight in Iraq, at the least, we must give them the tools they need to do their job."

If you support the troops, wouldn't you agree with that statement?

Tao said...

I would like to say a couple of things that need clearing up about this event, and what better way than from one of the Un-American “protesters” himself? First and FORMOST is that although we who were in the front row were all young dems, we in no way attended this film documentary as a group. The young dems have much better things to do than stake out CR events, and although I understand you feel like we are out to get you, I can honestly say that every one of us in the front row attended this event in the beginning believing that we would be sitting through the entire thing. We were especially excited about the post film discussion, particularly to get the chance to possibly speak to some veterans, since one of my friends you saw in the front row has a brother in Iraq right now. Then it occurred to us that there may not be a post-film discussion within the audience like there are at the PSU film series, where we promote and welcome constructive discussion afterwards. I made the notion that there was no point in me being at the film if there would not be a discussion afterwards, and I stated that I would simply leave, because frankly, viewing what seemed like a drawn out montage of soldiers kicking in doors to rock music didn’t exactly appeal to me; and I could watch the film on my own time if that was the case.

Those who were there know that we did in fact wait until the introduction was over to ask about the existence of a discussion, and did not interrupt as was lied about in this post (We even tried asking briefly before the film but were unable to get a straightforward response). We asked if there would be a discussion as the CR who introduced the film was starting to walk off stage, and we were told that we could take our opinions home with us. Maybe there was a misunderstanding though, because it seemed like they thought we were out to ask them [the CR’s] questions, which wasn’t the case or our intention. We just wanted to participate in an open discussion (You know, that whole part where you ask the audience “so what did you all think of the film?”). When we were told that there wouldn’t be any sort of discussion, we left to go watch the PSU film “We are Dad” instead, where we could openly discuss the film afterwards. It severely upsets me that they did in fact have some veterans speak, which would have been a very interesting experience. So to make that perfectly clear, it was because we thought that we wouldn’t be able to ask veterans questions, hear opinions from others, and openly discuss the very thing we were there to watch that my friends and I decided to go elsewhere. We did not go to your film to protest, even though that’s what ended up happening.

Daniel F Schanze said...

Tao, you are an outrageous liar. You certainly did ask the CR's and I if we would be answering questions and sharing opinions.

"I stated that I would simply leave, because frankly, viewing what seemed like a drawn out montage of soldiers kicking in doors to rock music didn’t exactly appeal to me; and I could watch the film on my own time if that was the case." -Tao

Again, that is their job. I guess you failed to listen to the interviews and what the Marines thought about what they were doing over there. That was depicted in the introduction clip that you saw. Stop trying to spin the facts. It's starting to reflex your "idiot". At no point in time did we say we were going to have Q&A from us or the Vets. It was only till after the movie that we knew the Vets were going to speak and answer questions. Again, that was up to them. It sounds like you already had your mind made up. You missed out on a great opportunity to learn something. I suggest you say sorry to the Vets present that you offended when you left. Can you fathom what they have sacrificed for us? It's because of them that you got to walk out. I'd like to see you cowards walk out of a Hamas meeting. I'd like to see you try the same thing... I wonder what would happen...

You are and your peers are so sorry. I pity you. I also pulled out the smallest violin in the world. I also called KBR and Halliburton to start construction on a bridge to cross your river of tears that you so vividly cried. Give me a break; this is a no spin zone.

Tao said...

You are right, I’m sure my right to free speech and our country would be overrun with Hamas terrorists and run by Saddam Hussein had we not gone to war in Iraq. End sarcasm. I beg to differ…you are the one who lied flamboyantly about us interrupting the introduction of such a “pride-pumping” experience, and just lied again about us asking you CR’s if you would be answering our questions. Why would I want a CR to answer a question about Iraq? It proves no point, and as you said at the film you definitely aren’t an expert on the situation. I wouldn’t want to hear from your gung-ho mouth anyways. If I wanted that, I could have accessed palousitics online from my cell phone. The only question I wanted to ask was whether there would be a discussion or not. What I wanted, what we ALL wanted, was to participate in a “DISCUSSION” …not a question and answers session, not a “let’s bash the CR’s session,” but a post film discussion where everyone in the audience was able to express what they felt and “discuss” the film. I thought as college students, you guys would know what we meant, and would have said “Oh yes of course.” We all honestly thought you guys would have one, and as I can see even some of your fellow readers who attended were wondering the same thing. The only thing you CR’s would have to do is regulate the conversation and pick on hands of people who wanted to speak. If you still don’t know what a post film discussion is, I would suggest any and all of you come to a PSU film sometime before the end of the school year, and we hope to have it running next year as well. As you so cleverly put it, I guess this is a “no-spin zone” when it comes to liberal bashing. You’ve been exposed liar.