Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 663 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Wow. Obfuscation, cherry picking, strawmen. Great job!
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Diving in to the elephant dung.
The New York Times 'outs' a telcom surveillance program run by the NSA--a top-secret program at that--and that counts as heroic investigative journalism.
Let's see. First you change the subject. Pathetically, you continue to ignore the fact that, no matter what your political leaning, the charges that led to the investigation of Scooter Libby are very serious. The issues at stake are nothing less than our security as a nation, but you pretend not to understand that there even are any charges. You leave the impression that you haven't even been presented with the charges.
I lay it out for you so that you can no longer deny that you understand what's at stake. You respond by changing the subject. Why am I not surprised?
Next:
But if Joe Wilson's true agenda and tasking are revealed, well then that is somehow treason. Pretty selective indeed.
Your awkward phrasing gives you away. "Joe Wilson's true agenda and tasking?" Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
The issue is that a covert agent's identity was revealed.
Even if you deny, against all evidence, that she was covert, those are the charges. You continue to phrase the issue in such a way to avoid even acknowledging what the charges are. Your rhetoric reveals the emptiness of your argument. I could argue your case much more effectively than you, because I would honestly engage the issues in a way that you are so obviously incapable of.
Do you deny that outing a covert agent is treason? What the hell is treason if THAT isn't?
I feel sorry for you, elephantman. I really do, because I imagine that you consider yourself a patriot, and I think you really do love this country of ours. As do we all, all of us patriots.
Be honest, Elephantman. I'll ask you a simple and direct question. Your integrity is at stake. Answer it honestly, and we can begin to have a discussion.
If someone were proven to out a covert intelligence agent, intentionally, would it be treason? If someone else knew about it, and lied about it, and obstructed justice to prevent that person from facing judgment for his crime, would that hypothetical person also be guilty of treason?
-
Elephants may never forget.
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But they don't know how to read.
Here's the definition from Wikipedia, of obstruction of justice.
"Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, who is not a suspect, has lied to the investigating officers."
You say "Libby [...] cooperated with investigators." Yet he was convicted of obstruction of justice, the opposite of cooperating with investigators. You don't try to address the actual court case or the actual evidence. Instead you take us on a bizarre journey, where there isn't any such thing as obstruction of justice.
You started out the argument trying to convince us that it wasn't even possible for Scooter to have obstructed justice, by mischaracterizing the issue as merely over Libby's bad recollection of his conversations with reporters. You pretended curiosity, asking how it was even possible that Libby obstructed.
Libby was convicted of exactly what you are saying is impossible. Maybe you should have been his defense attorney. He's so poor, and he knows so very few powerful people, he must have had a bad public defender or something. If only you could have been there to explain how charges weren't even possible! Libby might be a free man today, and justice would reign throughout the vast realm of Opposite Land.
-
You made a little oopsie. Lemme clean it up for you.
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A less charitable person than myself would call this a bald faced lie. I suppose perhaps you are only ignorant of the facts. You obviously haven't read the indictment.
He gave voluntary intereviews to the FBI, without benefit of counsel. He testified before the grand jury, also without an attorney at his side, and went back repeatedly every time he was asked to do so.
First of all, he gave 2 interviews to the FBI, both times with counsel present. It's on page 9 of the indictment, here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame9.html
Secondly, a classified leak case isn't a game where you get points for traveling or for just showing up. The only important and pertinent thing is whether or not you tell the truth. Libby did not. You are not. You have that in common.
-
Wow!
[Read the article: Give my petards to Broadway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't read the responses, but I hope they're not negative. You nailed it! Your essay captures exactly what I've felt is wrong with film for so long now, in a way that I couldn't quite articulate. In a very real way, you've given my my own voice.
-
Wow Gary!
[Read the article: Our favorite murderer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We've had our differences in the past, but that was truly brilliant!
-
Reality is not real
[Read the article: Joe Klein's stirring defense of Lewis Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have you angry, radical, tax and war conservatives even read the indictment?
You know who you are. You like to characterize the issue as Libby misremembering "some conversations with reporters."
In real life, if you are rich and powerful, like, say, assistant to the Vice President, you don't get convicted of obstruction of justice unless it's very solidly true that you obstructed justice.
Libby didn't just misremember. He claimed to have specific recollection of things that did not happen, and even stressed the fact that he was very clear in his memory. These quite elaborate fictions that he was very clear in remembering just happened to be material to several matters the grand jury was attempting to determine.
It also seems that the more positive his recollection, the more incorrect it was, unless you believe Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, and Judy Miller were all conspiring against him.
No one on earth can refute the charges against Libby, because they are plain and simply true. So they don't try. They don't even bother to read the indictment. Why do so? It would just get in the way of their whacky, radical, warmongering, poormongering ideology.
Here's the indictment: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html
The chocolate ration is two ounces. The chocolate ration has always been two ounces.