Richard Clarke blows Dubya's cover on 60 Minutes

[Sandman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stupid Dorky Butt-Sniffer whined:
>
> > John Kerry needs to accept that we are in the
> > process of nation building and we must see it
> > through.
>
> Once again, you've missed the larger picture

Apparently the "larger picture" is beyond your ability
to define.

>and, in the process,
> overlooked a very attractive alternative to the current process.

Which is?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> A new syllogism for Scottie Stupidity Syndrome appears.
>
> > > Stupid Dorky Butt-Sniffer whined:
> > >
> > > > John Kerry needs to accept that we are in the
> > > > process of nation building and we must see it
> > > > through.
> > >
> > > Once again, you've missed the larger picture
> >
> > Apparently the "larger picture" is beyond your ability
> > to define.
>
> I guess we have to add "apparently..." to your other idiocy flares.
> (As documented earlier, they are "obviously..." and "a sure sign...".)
>
> In the simplest terms, there is zero evidence that I'm unable to
> explain what I mean. Ask around. ;-)

You're way beyond the help of character witnesses George.
Show me some facts.

>
> > >and, in the process,
> > > overlooked a very attractive alternative to the current process.
> >
> > Which is?
>
> This is almost one of those too-obvious-to-mention things, Your
> Hopelessness. A similar example is your onetime query, "Why do we need
> to help poor people?" If you have to ask, you can't possibly
> understand, let alone accept.
>
> I will give you a hint, though: EVERYBODY IN THE ****ING WORLD HAS
> BEEN CALLING FOR THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR.

Let the U.N. screw things up? You can't be serious.
That bunch of morons couldn't handle oil for food
let alone this project. It will cost us much more
and take much longer. Forget it.

ScottW

[Nousaine]

(ScottW) wrote:



> How about this critique.
>
> Viacom owns CBS.
> CBS does 60 Minutes.
>
> What else might Viacom own?
> How about the Publishing Company of Clarkes book.

If you've ever seen a 60-Minutes show that covered a topic you were interested
in you'll know that the show exmplifies the idea of "yellow journalism."

[Schizoid Man]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message

> (ScottW) wrote:
>
> > How about this critique.
> >
> > Viacom owns CBS.
> > CBS does 60 Minutes.
> >
> > What else might Viacom own?
> > How about the Publishing Company of Clarkes book.
>
> If you've ever seen a 60-Minutes show that covered a topic you were
interested
> in you'll know that the show exmplifies the idea of "yellow journalism."

True. But CBS is by no means the worst offender. Fox, CNN, the New York
Times, the Wall Street Journal and probably ever other major news
publication can be acused of the same.

[Mikermckelvy]

>Dubya's cover on 60 Minutes
>From: (Jacob Kramer)

>The one who seems to have an axe to grind is you. You are
>consistently unwilling to believe anything negative about the Bush
>administration.

As you are unwilling to believe anything positive about the Bush
administration.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Mikermckelvy wrote:

>>Dubya's cover on 60 Minutes
>>From: (Jacob Kramer)
>
>
>>The one who seems to have an axe to grind is you. You are
>>consistently unwilling to believe anything negative about the Bush
>>administration.
>
>
> As you are unwilling to believe anything positive about the Bush
> administration.

Politicians need to EARN respect through their actions because
that ALL are known liars.

[Phil]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> Phil, I guess I'm just going to have to give you the same advice I gave
> pajamarama. Quit brainwashing yourself and take a good look around for
> several months, turn a critical eye on Bush and his cronies, then report
> back on what you see that's different.
>
I hate to seem mean about this Jim, but the person who is brainwash isn't me
but, sadly, it's you. I know, I know, I don't know because I haven't seen
the truth. But, the truth is, I have read practically every thing you've
posted and great deal more. The problem isn't my lack of diverse opinion,
but yours. You're in the democraticunderground echo chamber. You're talking
to yourself and hearing everything you want to hear. You don't branch out
and you don't question. You think I'm wrong, you think I'm a tool of the
extreme right wing. The problem is where you're looking from. The democratic
underground is the far, far, left wing. They've gone so far left their off
the map and from there everyone who disagrees or even questions is far to
the right of them.
I'm not brain wash Jim, you are. So come out of the echo chamber and open
your mind, you may learn something. You may be right or you may be wrong but
at least you'll have a more well round view and thus a set of arguments that
are more convincing than the spew of the far left which unfortunately is
just hate.

Phil

[Phil]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> > "Phil" > wrote in message
> > news:udr7c.56529$KO3.193638@attbi_s02...
> > >
> > > Before one gets to overly enthuse about Mr.Clarke one should consider
a
> > few
> > > details about Mr. Clark. One is does he have axes to grind?
>
> The one who seems to have an axe to grind is you. You are
> consistently unwilling to believe anything negative about the Bush
> administration.

Since there is so much Bush bashing here there is little reason for me to
comment when I disagree with Bush. However, since you don't seem to say
anything positive about Bush wouldn't the same comment hold for you. And,
isn't that the nice thing about that comment, you can uses it for anyone,
who has an opinion different than yours. Thus, logically speaking since it
can be used for and against any opinion it follows that the comment is
meaningless, but it is a nice rhetorical device, isn't it.
If you will, such illogical comments are truly, my axe to grind. Thus, the
rhetorical grinding.

Phil

[Phil]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Phil" > wrote in message
news:<bK58c.78339$Cb.1019866@attbi_s51>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > "Phil" > wrote in message
> > > > news:udr7c.56529$KO3.193638@attbi_s02...
> > > > >
> > > > > Before one gets to overly enthuse about Mr.Clarke one should
consider
> > a
> > few
> > > > > details about Mr. Clark. One is does he have axes to grind?
> > >
> > > The one who seems to have an axe to grind is you. You are
> > > consistently unwilling to believe anything negative about the Bush
> > > administration.
> >
> > Since there is so much Bush bashing here there is little reason for me
to
> > comment when I disagree with Bush. However, since you don't seem to say
> > anything positive about Bush wouldn't the same comment hold for you.
And,
> > isn't that the nice thing about that comment, you can uses it for
anyone,
> > who has an opinion different than yours. Thus, logically speaking since
it
> > can be used for and against any opinion it follows that the comment is
> > meaningless, but it is a nice rhetorical device, isn't it.
> > If you will, such illogical comments are truly, my axe to grind. Thus,
the
> > rhetorical grinding.
>
> This is really empty reasoning. You could make that accusation, but
> are you? Frankly there hasn't been a discussion about anything
> positive about him. But whatever negative comes out, if you comment
> on it, you breezily deny it or impugn the source. Why do you do this?

Is it empty reasoning? Not really, I gave you the logic of inference, note
you did not. Your response was just another accusation without foundation or
if you will, "breezily deny or impugn the source."
But, just for fun let's consider your implication of your comment, that I
impugn the source. Did I do it with Clarke? Yes, I did, but remember
Clarke's validated is based on his reputation since most of what he said was
based on his opinion. Thus, having an axe to grind should be consider, as
you would do if there was a person attacking a Democrat.
In the last few days Clarke's accuracy has been truly tested and it is valid
to question his motives. In an earlier interview and in under oath testimony
he has contradict his book and his recent testimony. It would seem
reasonable to question his testimony questionable, neither the good or the
bad can be taken as fact, you just must reject everything he says, one way
or the other.
Jacob, you may call that "breezy", but in reality it is being intellectually
honest. You should try it some time before you accuse other.

Phil

[Phil]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Phil" > wrote in message
news:<b6m9c.107171$1p.1534901@attbi_s54>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Phil" > wrote in message
> > news:<bK58c.78339$Cb.1019866@attbi_s51>...
> > > > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > > "Phil" > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:udr7c.56529$KO3.193638@attbi_s02...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before one gets to overly enthuse about Mr.Clarke one should
> > consider
> > > > a
> > > > few
> > > > > > > details about Mr. Clark. One is does he have axes to grind?
> > > > >
> > > > > The one who seems to have an axe to grind is you. You are
> > > > > consistently unwilling to believe anything negative about the Bush
> > > > > administration.
> > > >
> > > > Since there is so much Bush bashing here there is little reason for
me
> > to
> > > > comment when I disagree with Bush. However, since you don't seem to
say
> > > > anything positive about Bush wouldn't the same comment hold for you.
> > And,
> > > > isn't that the nice thing about that comment, you can uses it for
> > anyone,
> > > > who has an opinion different than yours. Thus, logically speaking
since
> > it
> > > > can be used for and against any opinion it follows that the comment
is
> > > > meaningless, but it is a nice rhetorical device, isn't it.
> > > > If you will, such illogical comments are truly, my axe to grind.
Thus,
> > the
> > > > rhetorical grinding.
> > >
> > > This is really empty reasoning. You could make that accusation, but
> > > are you? Frankly there hasn't been a discussion about anything
> > > positive about him. But whatever negative comes out, if you comment
> > > on it, you breezily deny it or impugn the source. Why do you do this?
> >
> > Is it empty reasoning? Not really, I gave you the logic of inference,
note
> > you did not. Your response was just another accusation without
foundation or
> > if you will, "breezily deny or impugn the source."
> > But, just for fun let's consider your implication of your comment, that
I
> > impugn the source. Did I do it with Clarke? Yes, I did, but remember
> > Clarke's validated is based on his reputation since most of what he said
was
> > based on his opinion. Thus, having an axe to grind should be consider,
as
> > you would do if there was a person attacking a Democrat.
> > In the last few days Clarke's accuracy has been truly tested and it is
valid
> > to question his motives. In an earlier interview and in under oath
testimony
> > he has contradict his book and his recent testimony. It would seem
> > reasonable to question his testimony questionable, neither the good or
the
> > bad can be taken as fact, you just must reject everything he says, one
way
> > or the other.
> > Jacob, you may call that "breezy", but in reality it is being
intellectually
> > honest. You should try it some time before you accuse other.
>
> Oh believe me I have no trouble trying to be intellectually honest.
> Your "axe to grind" argument is pure crap, as I have no doubt you
> know.

To be intellectually honest would require that you make argument to backup
you assertions, such as the one above, my argument being "pure crap". It is
easy to pontificate rather than to debate but it does not prove your
intellectual honest, it does, in fact, contradict that assertion.
>
> Are you making this argument against me, or is this purely an abstract
> point you're making? What positive facts have emerged about Bush that
> I haven't been willing to admit?

Well it is rather difficult to do this because I can seem to remember you
saying anything positive about Bush. But, let's instead review one of failed
syllogism.

Your argument was that: no WMD have been found therefore Bush lied.

There syllogism assume that the requirements for lying is just that the
statement is not true, but this is incorrect. Below is Merriam-Webster
definition of a lie.

to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Note, that two things are need for a lie. (1) an untrue statement and (2)
intent to deceive.
Although you may consider the first statement to be true however you did not
prove the second and your opinion is not proof.

But, consider your argument in a different case. Bill Clinton attack Osama
bin Laden with cruise missiles his says to kill him, but Osama bin Laden
wasn't there, so the statement wasn't true, therefore, following your
syllogism, Bill Clinton lied. No doubt you think this is unfair, I agree,
but it is your argument, not mine.

Think about it and the true nature of intellectual honesty.

Phil