"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