"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