Heavens! Thanks for the lecture from on high!

It is possible to call anyone a "liar". Merely making the accusation should not be grounds for anyone to have to defend a point-by-point attack, if the attackers are excessively partisan, propogandists, or even merely consistently wrong. Life is too short and people are too busy to have to answer every possible frivolous claim.

So, if I want to maintain my position that the President didn't lie, I think I should merely need to take on the best, most credible attack first, and if I can take it on, then it should be fair to ignore much of the rest.

Does that mean I would ignore all criticism and accusations for all time? No. My point in all of this is that it has become incredibly convenient for liberals to brand the man a liar when he has lied not at all, or, at the very least, lied less than any of them in their lives.

So, I do not need your solace, but perhaps you need mine. You claim my stance is a silly, childish one that was old news long ago, but being old news does not make it juvenile. There is a record to preserve. The solace you can take is that you were careful from the beginning to act above it all, and so you can keep doing that.