What Libby?
- hsvbc
- Frank_Monaldo
- hsvbc
- Frank_Monaldo
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» hsvbc - Libby Gets Indicted
If you entitle an article "Libby Gets Indicted", please write about Libby getting indicted, and not about 'what a bunch of liars' everyone else is. Being paranoid doesn't make Frank Monaldo, Scooter Libby, OR George Bush, any more correct -- or a better American.Especially as a Conservative, I'd like to see a well-reasoned explanation of Scooter Libby's innocence. What Frank Monaldo presents is a semi-paranoid bashing of those whom Monaldo feels are 'against' the President. Repeated attempts to explain away what Libby may (or may not) have done, by either painting Libby's accusers as having done worse, or trying to color his actions as in the National Interest, doesn't address whether a law has been broken.
While I'd hoped for an intelligent description (from a conservative viewpoint) of the indictments, I was prepared to accept a strictly pro-conservative version of the story. But somehow Monaldo has made Libby look obviously guilty.
Oh, well.
Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to the FBI. Monaldo is completely correct to note that the indictment comes from an investigation of the "outing" of a CIA agent; and it's also true Libby was not indicted for releasing that confidential information. After that point, however, Monaldo seems uninterested in the 'truth'.
The article goes out of its way to question the justice behind Libby's indictments, and almost rants in coming to the conclusion that this entire ordeal is about "undermining Bush". Monaldo writes continuous paragraphs questioning Joseph Wilson (and his manhood), whom Monaldo describes as "debunking... the President's State of the Union address". We're even told about Wilson's politics. The actual crime leading to Libby's indictments is not mentioned after the first sentence; and the rest of what Monaldo tells us is that Joseph Wilson is not a big fan of President Bush, and then he questions WILSON's truthfulness in having 'debunked' the President.
Was Wilson right, or wrong, in his criticism of the Bush Administration back in 2003? What the hell does that have to do with Scooter Libby's innocence? If Wilson lied or told the truth - or even if he was simply psychotic - Libby might have committed perjury. By trying to shift the argument to Wilson, Monaldo only succeeds in making Libby look MORE guilty. By the way, Wilson had nothing to do with indicting Libby, so HIS story doesn't matter in the indictments.
A note to Liberals and Conservatives alike: The indictments are a question of Libby's truthfulness under oath to the US government as it investigated a crime. Unless convicted, his legal status is "innocent". But that doesn't mean he can't be indicted in the first place! If that's the best argument the White House legal advisors can come up with (Libby's innocent because he hasn't been convicted), then I thank God we've had a change in nominees to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
And a final note to Frank Monaldo: Leave the mathematical terms ("orthogonal") to arithmetic. It doesn't make you stupider to write "perpendicular", but it DOES make you look stupider to incorrectly use "big words" in an attempt to out-talk the other point of view, instead of out-thinking them.
-- posted by hsvbc
» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Libby Gets Indicted
In response to Libby Gets Indicted posted by hsvbc:Dear Hsvbc,
Thank you for passionate response. I will not make a statement about Libby's innocence or guilt, because I do not know the answer. Of course, we all presume innocence, but the prosecutor makes what he considers a strong case. As I specifically said, we will have to wait and see. You may think I have to defend possible perjury by Libby, but I see no reason to do so. I will not invoke the "Cinton defense."
The point of the little essay was that Libby's indictment frustrated the Democrats' intention to make a trial the center of an argument about the war. Too bad. The prosecutor does not seem to be accommodating these preferences.
BTW, Wilson's relevance here lies in the argument that "Bush lied" for which Wilson is the designated poster child. Frankly using such a flawed individual is not wise, but I am not the one dragging him across news programs or writing fawning articles about him.
I am sorry that you do not like the term "orthogonal." Being a physicist using mathematically-related terms comes as second nature, but I believe that its use here is appropriate. Check out wordnet.princeton.edu and you will find that a definition of "orthogonal" is "extraneous" or "immaterial." Personally, I prefer the word "orthogonal" because it directly implies the independence of two different arguments.
PS: I believe you accidently mis-wrote. The term "orthogonality" is more relevant to geometry than arthmetic.
-- posted by Frank_Monaldo
» hsvbc - Re: Re: Libby Gets Indicted
In response to Re: Libby Gets Indicted posted by Frank_Monaldo:I really am surprized at how upset you became, just because someone disagrees with you. Based on the "Libby Gets Indicted" article and your reply to me, I'm not sure you'll approach this objectively -- but it's worth an off-hand chance: Your article and reply are indicative of a smugness that's becoming inherent among American conservatives, both the politicians and the philosophizers (no, not "philosophers".)
You completely missed the point of my first discussion; you highlight that you're a physicist, which you explain somehow gives you free reign to use mathematic terms (no matter how confusing, or wrong, the use might be in standard English); and you make the assumption - without demonstrated basis - that your grasp of English exceeds my own.
You also write, "I will not make a statement about Libby's innocence or guilt, because I do not know the answer," immediatley before stating that you presume his innocence. Isn't that a statement? Maybe "statement" means something different in physics?
The assumption of superiority and 'being correct' will be the downfall of the GOP, just as it has led to the downfall of all previous 'powers' which decided that what is "right", is whatever came out of their mouths.
Simple logic - something I believe you can handle - tells me that the need to express a (political) opinion is indicative that there are multiple viewpoints to be expressed; and, more than one viewpoint is a strong indicator that no ONE view is entirely correct. The smug certainty that any one political party is 'correct', is in direct conflict with the use of democracy for governance. Since our government is based on representitive democracy, I believe the majority of Americans would prefer democracy to a one-party system.
Before you decide to have a whining contest over the correct use of English, perhaps you'd care to find out if I'm a physicist, or what? For example, you thanked me for a "passionate response." What you meant was, "an impassioned response;" unless, of course, you feel an attraction which I won't be returning. Before assuming I "mis-wrote" anything (and since you've expressed a knowledge of some mathematics), you should be aware that, A) geometry is a branch of mathematics; and, B) "arithmetic" (in English, at least) can be a generalized synomyn for mathematics. Also, I never used the term "orthogonality" - which IS frequently used by professional statisticians.
"Orthogonal" doesn't refer to the "independence of two different arguments"; it refers to the independence of factors. Mathematically, "factors" may also be called "arguments", but that logic would also insist that "11" means "three", because it does - when you're using a binary system. So, in that case, if you gave me "11" dollars, and I gave you "FOUR" dollars in return, you'd make a profit; right?
Look, if your entire basis in physics means your political statements are correct - in the realm of physics - you need to bow down and kiss my foot, since my education in politics and philosophy so greatly outweighs your education in the same subjects. To be completely fair, though, I'll promise to give weigh to your opinion, next time I'm looking for a proton. I don't expect to have you kissing my feet - ever - primarily because MY training doesn't renege YOUR political opportunities. But if your opinion is that your training makes you 'right' in physics, then you'd have to agree that my training would make me 'right' when it comes to politics.
If - from whatever perspective - you're going to publish an article aobut Joseph Wilson and the Democrat's inability to run our government, just be honest enough to call it that. I'm sure you'll agree that no one looks for 'Thanksgiving Recipes' on the "ancient agriculture" page.
-- posted by hsvbc
» Frank_Monaldo - Re: Re: Re: Libby Gets Indicted
In response to Re: Re: Libby Gets Indicted posted by hsvbc:Dear Hsvbc,
You seem to have missed the point of the essay. It is that the indictment is being exploited my Democrats to say something the prosecutor never said. Democrats are arguing that the indictment says something about the Iraq war. It does not.
The rest of your arguments are irrelevant side issues with respect to my thesis. Given that you are writing anonymously, I cannot speak to how educated you are with respect to politics and philosophy. Forgive me if I do not, in your words, bow down and kiss your foot.
You seem to be stuck on the my use of the word "orthogonal." I gave you a independent reference that showed that I used the word correctly, though I concede it comes from a methaphorical extension of its mathematical meaning.
-- posted by Frank_Monaldo
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.