Horowitz lays it all out

[HBK]

Not I said the cat...

 

[Kim]

David Horowitz opened my eyes to the left in this country. I had a hard time figuring the left out until I read his book "Radical Son". Since reading his book along with Whittaker Chambers book "The Witness" My eyes have been wide open and there is nothing I fear as much as a left wing run government.

 

[idd]

Well then, I guess that makes it your word against his.

No, you misunderstand. That leaves only the word of Horowitz, i.e., not a shred of evidence to support *his* claim.

Since I have no information on which to judge,

Just as Horowitz has no information to support his specific claim that the Palestinian Authority supported or does support Al Qaeda.

Here's yet another claim by Horowitz.
He was identified as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi Intelligence agent.

Utter nonsense.

Only after coming to believe that America would cut and run at the first sight of blood and a dead soldier being dragged through the streets on Clinton's watch.

So if the US had, say, killed another few thousand Somalis or captured Aideed, Al Qeada would not have bombed the WTC in 2001?

So, are you arguing that they shouldn't have begun the mission, or that they shouldn't bother finishing what they started?

My position is that the US military's function should be the protection of the United States, not running "humanitarian" or "peace-keeping" missions in other countries.

The strategy that has thus far created a "honey pot" for terrorists in Iraq, facing well armed and trained professional gunment, rather than Smallville Mall, USA.

Rewrite for clarity.

Well, the other strategy sure as heck didn't work, and placating terrorists has a bad track record.

What "other strategy" are you referring to? Let's see, there was the strategy of Ronald Reagan and Oliver North, appeasing terrorists, rewarding them with weapons (1000 TOW missiles) and Bibles. Nope, that hare-brained strategy sure didn't work. There was Bush I's strategy of stopping the first Iraq war prematurely instead of going ahead for another few days to destroy Saddam's Republican Guard so that his own people could rise up and finish the job. Freed from the US pressure, Saddam redirected his troops against the Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north who had rebelled in response to Bush I's call for the Iraqis to take out Saddam. Boy oh boy were they in for a surprise.

You know nothing about me one way or the other, sir.

Wait, you thought I was referring to *you*? I was talking about President George Bush's playing soldier on the deck of an aircraft carrier last July, dressed up in costume, the helmet under his arm as if he had just returned from a run over Baghdad, with his macho swaggering and exhortations the previous day to those attacking American soldiers in Iraq. "Bring it on!" he barked.



That's our liar-n-chief.

 

[Art Eatman]

Some folks are skating on the edge of getting a bit too personal in this backing and forthing. Hold it down, okay?

In the FWIW department, OBL (somewhere in one of the media's reports of his commentaries) stated that our pullout from Somalia was encouraging to him, giving him the idea that we were but a paper tiger as so often claimed by others. Make of that what you will.

Given the behavior of the various terrorist groups through these last thirty or forty years, I would be surprised if there were not some degree of cooperation between such as Hamas, et al, and Al Qaeda. IMO, there's gotta be some sort of communication and exchange of information. One of the older cliches on this earth is the Arab saying about "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Art

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Wow. The apologists are out in full bloom.

Our entire foreign service and intelligence apparatus is infested with radicals that want to make sure we "understand" the terrorists and that we "look for root causes" and the like. And we have two pages of which President did what, when, and where.

What has happened and what must be done are kinda different. Myopia, "law enforcement", dithering, and "how do the terrorists feel" about us did not work. It appears that taking the fight to the terrorists has worked, so far.

Regardless of what happened in the past, if we even give an inch in the WOT at this time, we are just inviting a "Madrid."

 

[hillbilly]

Well, no one has yet offered a specific rebuttal to the charges surrounding the twin bombings of the African embassies and the attack on the USS Cole.

None of those acts, all committed by Al Quaeda, was responded to in any fashion whatsoever.

In fact, US foreign policy impotence was so complete that the security guards on the deck on the USS Cole who manned the machine guns were not allowed any live ammo.

This can be checked and verified.

Under the terms of "foreign policy measures" at the time, the gunners on the deck on the USS Cole could do nothing but watch the suicide boat come on, as they were prevented, by standing orders, from having live ammo for their guns.

Some one has argued that Clinton was actually taking a tough stand against terrorism as he "okayed" a plan to get Bin Laden.

But Clinton and Clinton administration figures have all admitted that there were at least three chances to whack Bin Laden which were not followed up.

Also, offers from Sudan to deliver up Bin Laden were turned down again and again.

All of these instances can be verified and documented.

And all of these instances, I think, these speak volumes.


hillbilly

 

[hillbilly]

And oh yeah, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence any where that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef had anything at all to do with Iraqi intelligence.....


http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

 

[Cactus]

It's amazing how the apologists for Bill Clinton, in one breath, can self-rightiously claim that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch so don't blame Clinton for anything, yet in the very next breath go back 20 years and say that Ronald Reagan didn't handle the Beirut bombing strongly enough or that the first President Bush didn't get Saddam (because the UN, who should now be in charge of Iraq according to them, wouldn't allow it). And then turn around 180 degrees and imply that Clinton really had no alternative but to cut and run from Somalia. If they spin any faster, they'll screw themselves right into the ground.

But you have to feel sorry for the lefties. Nothing is going their way. First, their great hope, Howie Dean, forgets to take his medication before a speech and apparently wears a tin foil hat in private.

Then the next great hope, the bo-toxed Boston Brahman, who can't let a speech go by without reminding us that he was in Viet Nam, turns out to be a self professed war criminal and first rate waffler and flip flopper; ("I actually voted for the 87 million before I voted against it". This came after stating to the media that he would never vote against the 87 million, even if it didn't include his amendment, because to do so would be "cutting off support of our troops in the field".

And now, there latest hope in the "I hate Bush" band wagen, turns out to be a world class lier worthy of Bill Clinton himself. He writes a book telling how President Bush was asleep at the switch, only to have it contested by his own words at a press conference 18 months ago. That, plus his 1999 statements to the Washington Post that al Quada and Iraq were connected (he now denies it) and his testimony before a House committee stating that the Clinton Administration had no coordinated approach to terrorism, make his book questionable. Either his book is a lie or his previous press statements were lies. Either way his value as a witness is worthless!

If the poor lefties ever stop spinning, they will be left with nothing but a large puddle of slime that used to be the great Democrat Party.

 

[adobewalls]

Did anyone notice that Hamas quickly backtracked on its threat to include the US in its retaliation against Israel for killing Yassin?

Hmmm, I wonder why they backtracked? They know, "we feel their pain"? Or, the message delivered by backchannel communications of what would happen if they did retailiate against American interest? Maybe Muammar Kadahfy of Libya could help shed some light on why Hamas so quickly retracted?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040324/D81GP45G0.html


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - The new Hamas leader in Gaza said on Wednesday the group had no plans to attack American targets, pulling back from retaliatory threats by the group's armed wing after Israel's assassination of the Hamas founder.

At the same time, however, another top Hamas political figure said the militant group would try to kill Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in retaliation for the death of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

The Islamic group had made veiled threats it would retaliate against the United States for Yassin's killing, but it has rarely attacked American targets during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a hard-liner named Tuesday as Hamas' new Gaza chieftain, said the group's militant activities were aimed solely at Israel, which it has pledged to destroy and replace with an Islamic state.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Since 9/11 the life of a terrorist is worth.....squat

I guess they are not "feelin' the love."

A new Marshal in town and all that

 

[Denko]

I think Clinton screwed up for 8 yrs. and Bush screwed up until 9/11.I kind of wonder why Condi doesn't want to testify?

 

[Stealth101]

Thanks Hillbilly for setting the record straight!
How anyone could defend Bill Clinton is beyond me....he not only shamed the office of the president, but he shamed our nation!
I guess if someone strokes you emotionally thats all that matters for some. It does matter to me that he was a coward, and the most corrupt president in my lifetime!

 

[thefitzvh]

A little off topic, but does anyone else think that the Hamas statement about "no plans to attack US" is encouraging?

Does anyone else think that maybe terrorists are starting to realize that if they with us, they're going to meet their demise?

I find it someone encouraging.


James

 

[fallingblock]

No, idd......

"That's our liar-n-chief."
************************************************************

That was Clinton.

Found in contempt of court of perjury, you know.

You have not presented convincing evidence that Bush has lied.

And Bush certainly has not been convicted.

 

[thefitzvh]

[leftist]

Hey, buddy! Acting on intelligence that's the best you have at the time, and later finding out it was inaccurate, is LYING! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!

[/leftist]

Gimme a break


James

 

[Obiwan]

"Hindsight is always 20/20."

And that seems to be all that the raving leftists have to offer...hindsight...but only with respect to Bush.

The man took office around 8 months before 9/11....but he holds ALL the blame...please...the plans for 9/11 were almost certainly finalized before 2001.

What I find particularly telling is the mainstream medias simple acceptance of the Clarke book.

Only the more centrist/rught leaning media sources are pointing out the contradictions.

For Instance.

Clarke pointing out, in testimony this week, that the Bush Admin almost immediately changed from the rollback to eliminate plan.

The previous administration had a 5 year plan to "roll back" Al-Queda...

Yup...they would almost have them rolled back by now...but 9/11...still happened.

Secondly, his "impression" that Condi had never heard of Al_Queda...guess he should have listened to her interview in October 2000 concerning Al-Queda and the threat they posed.

If he didn't even know that, how much else did he "surmise"

Lastly...please stop the gratuitous remarks about Somalia...it just feeds my conviction that we NEVER LEARN.....

Those boys were hung out to dry by an Administration that was too concerned with looking good to give them the tools they needed to do their job.

An Administration that "Ran Away" rather than sending a clear message that we will not see our soldiers treated that way by our enemies...(only we can throw them away)

We can record bodies dragged in the street, but can't lob a Daisy Cutter on the bastards??(talk about a clear message- See Allah NOW)

 

[Obiwan]

On a lighter note....

Horowitz has an agenda...certainly....but he also has a lot of FACTS to back up his assertions...not just "feelings".

I am really impressed with how some of you seem to know WHEN Clarke was lying....really...I am

All I have figured out is that he is a liar...and therefore not someone that can bolster either argument.

Unless of course your whole approach is to latch on to that which supports you and discard everything else.

But I have not read his book...I am sure it contains an assertion that his word is good.

But maybe you can SPLAIN to me why he is no longer working for the Bush administration and yet he still claims (in testimony given this week)they (Bush Adminstration)"turned up the heat" on eliminating Al-Queda?

A little late to suck up ...isn't it

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Clark is nothing but a disgruntled former gov employee who thought he was destined for greatness but achieved only mediocrity. So, he quit and wrote a book.
He will say whatever it takes to get his mug on TV (you're not likely to get 60 Min spot being pro Bush these days) and sell his book.
It makes no difference if anyone legitimately disputes his rhetoric, it's not what the Liberal media wants to hear and you're not likely to hear about it in the mainstream media.
Clark is nothing but a media prostitute.

 

[bountyhunter]

.

Well, that's all Clinton was good for, taking measures, and lobbing cruise missiles as a half hearted gesture, and this planted the seeds of 9/11. When GWB recognized an act of war, he played for keeps.

I know a certain level of hypocrisy will always permeate politics, but I have to scream when I hear this: Clinton assailed for not waging full scale war against Al Qaeda when that group had not even been identified as responsible for the Somalia attacks at the time they occurred? Seriously? And the bastion of defense, a man enshrined in the Republican hall of fame (reagan) gets a blind eye for running from the single largets terror attack on our citizens up til that time (Beirut)? Double standard much?

The other point is, the "military solution" to eradicating AQ and OBL: just how well has it worked out? You hold Bush up as the man of action, but exactly how well has it stemmed the growth of AQ or reduced it's ability to deliver massive death? Not much.... OBL still thumbs his nose at us and AQ has evolved into separate and distinct operating units in much the same way as the IRA did when the SAS started killing off it's leaders. Point is, you rag on Clinton for not taking a course of action which up to this point (under Bush's strong hand) has proven to be enormously costly in terms of manpower, money, lives, and sacrificing of international good will and virtually useless for taking down AQ who are using Iraq as their playground now that we so conveniently drove out Hussein, the man who hated their organization almost as much as we do.

 

[idd]

[Clinton was] convicted of perjury, you know.

He was never "convicted of perjury." U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas found Clinton in contempt of court for giving "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process." She fined him $90,686. Oliver North was convicted. Admiral Poindexter was convicted. Clinton was sanctioned.

You have not presented convincing evidence that Bush has lied.

George Bush (May 29, 2003): “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.†The president was referring to two trailers captured in Iraq.

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs . . . a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly that the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." --The Observer, June 15, 2003

How many more lies from the Bush Adminsitration do you need? Here, this should keep you busy.

hillbilly wrote:

None of those acts [twin bombings of the African embassies and the attack on the USS Cole], all committed by Al Quaeda, was responded to in any fashion whatsoever.

Flat wrong, hillbilly. US embassies were bombed on 7 August 1998. In the week that followed both the FBI and CIA provided detailed evidence that the attack was executed by Al Qaeda. The CIA developed intel that bin Laden and his top staff were going to meet on 20 August to review the results of their attack and plan their next step. On 20 August the US fired 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. We don't know how close we came to taking out bin Laden and his homies that day. Whatever the truth is, bin Laden unfortunately was not killed in the raid.

And oh yeah, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence any where that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef had anything at all to do with Iraqi intelligence.....[link to aritcle by articleby Laurie Mylroie]

All I see in Laurie Mylroie's article is a lot of idle speculation, but no real evidence. Her contention that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was an Iraqi ntelligence agent has long since been investigated by the FBI and the CIA, and discredited. (Her style reminds me of someone you meet at a party who is unshaven and has bad breath, gets you in a corner, and then starts telling you "the guy everyone thinks is Oswald, that's not Oswald, the real Oswald was off in Mexico...") If Iraq were really behind the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, why hasn't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell or Rice ever cited this claim as causus belli for war against Iraq?

I think Clinton screwed up for 8 yrs. and Bush screwed up until 9/11.I kind of wonder why Condi doesn't want to testify?

An excellent question. For not wanting to talk about it, she sure does make the rounds of talk shows. Why doesn't she get down to the 9/11 Commission and answer some questions under oath?

In fact, US foreign policy impotence was so complete that the security guards on the deck on the USS Cole who manned the machine guns were not allowed any live ammo.

Would you have a cite for that? Offhand I'd say that sounds right. It's consistent with what we know about the deficient security arrangements on the USS Cole, the missed warnings, etc. See James Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny, pp. 46-47.

woW. The apologists are out in full bloom. ... It's amazing how the apologists for Bill Clinton, in one breath, can self-rightiously claim that...all that the raving leftists have to offer... How anyone could defend Bill Clinton is beyond me...Clark is nothing but a media prostitute.

I see no apologists for Bill Clinton this web board. I do see a lot of attempts at ad hominem in lieu of reasoned argument.

Only the more centrist/rught [sic] leaning media sources are pointing out the contradictions.

Since you havent even read his book, you wouldn't know a contradiction to it if it bit you on the leg.

but [Horowitz] also has a lot of FACTS to back up his assertions

Well then I guess he's keeping them to himself. When I think about David Horowitz, I rememberthe words of Winston Churchill. "He is a modest little man, with much to be modest about."

 

[fix]

Since you havent even read his book, you wouldn't know a contradiction to it if it bit you on the leg.

Many of us have no intention of buying this man's book. I have no desire to help make the man rich when the likely outcome of my reading the book will be that everything I suspect is wrong with it will merely be confirmed. Having met the man in person, and having spent 3 hours listening to him stroke his own ego while ignoring those of us who were invited for the specific purpose of advising him, I left with the impression that his number one goal was self promotion. It appears that nothing has really changed other than the fact that he had a taxpayer funded bully pulpit then, while he needs me to fund it volutarily now. No thank you.

 

[Obiwan]

From the WSJ article

"Common sense suggests that those who led the nation for eight years before 9/11 bear greater responsibility than those who led the nation for less than eight months."

Amen!

 

[roo_ster]

Clark
Clark is not credible, given his contradictory statements. Period. You don't have to read his book to understand that, only read the 60 Min transcripts and then compare them to his statements to the press in the years before. I will not speculate as to the man's motives. The written record d@mns him. Folks like him hope that nobody remembers what they said/did in the past, but the 'net bites them in the a$$. You gotta love the blogosphere & Lexis/Nexus for holding folks accountable for what they have said in the past.

Any attempt to insist that Clark is credible, given the record, does not reflect well on one's judgement.

Clinton
Never was my favorite politician, even when he was my governor (moved around a bit & ended up there for a while). The rest of y'all fell for the Great Arkansas Plot to get Clinton outta Arkansas by any means necessary. Muhahahaha!

My favorite story about Clinton was when the deadline (midnight) to sign a bill came up & Clinton was STILL dithering, hemming, hawing, and puttin' on a Hamlet act. He finally signs it (literally) at the 11th hour and orders an Arkansas St Tooper to stuff it under the door of the official who was to recieve it, but was in bed at home. St Trooper did as ordered...except that in the meantime, Billy Blythe had changed his mind and ordered the St Trooper to go back down and try to fish out/back the bill from under the locked door with a wire hanger.

That's your decisive, stalwart, terror-fightin' warrior.

Reagan
Yeah, the Marine barracks bombing was ugly. Personally, I think Reagan went too easy on the place. Should have pulled a "Dresden," IMO. Leave the message, "Kill our boys, & we turn your country into a lifeless plain of rubble."

But that's just me.

Horowitz
He's been in the belly of the beast, being a red-diaper-baby & raised commie. What hacks off the lefties so much is that he uses their own tactics against them and he REMEMBERS. No "Marquis of Queensbury" for David. He's a fghter the way that the Republican Party has never produced. They despise him so much not because what he says is false or slanted, but because it is true. He lifts the rock and shines the light of fact on them as they scurry about seeking cover.

 

[Cactus]

George Bush (May 29, 2003): “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.†The president was referring to two trailers captured in Iraq.

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs . . . They are exactly that the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." --The Observer, June 15, 2003

How many more lies from the Bush Adminsitration do you need? Here, this should keep you busy.

A lie, according to Webster's, is; "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive".

All of those silly little Bush "lies" the lefties like to cite are either mis-statements or mistakes. There is no evidence that President Bush knew those statements to be false when he said them.

Now this is an example of a real lie: "I never had sexual relations with that woman...". Notice the difference? The speaker knew that statement to be a lie when he said it!

Flat wrong, hillbilly. US embassies were bombed on 7 August 1998. In the week that followed both the FBI and CIA provided detailed evidence that the attack was executed by Al Qaeda. On 20 August the US fired 75 cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Very true. Athough Clinton's actions can be criticized for being ineffective and too limited, he can't be criticized for doing nothing.

An excellent question. For not wanting to talk about it, she sure does make the rounds of talk shows. Why doesn't she get down to the 9/11 Commission and answer some questions under oath?

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that Ms. Rice has testified for over 4 hours, under oath, to the commission in private, idd. Now see, you made what could correctly be called a misstatement, but it wouldn't be a lie unless you knew your statement to be false! See how easy that is?

I do see a lot of attempts at ad hominem in lieu of reasoned argument.

You mean like this statement?

idd:When I think about David Horowitz, I remember the words of Winston Churchill. "He is a modest little man, with much to be modest about."

It also appears that Richard Clarke will soon be under investigation to see if he lied to the House Intellegence Committee. Apparently his testimony, under oath, in 2002 is directly contradicted by his book. And according to l John Lehman, member of the 9-11 committee, Mr. Clarke's public testimony yesterday is in contradiction to his testimony given previously in private.

The left keeps putting out these war criminals (Kerry) and liers (Clarke) without checking their previous statements. I guess they haven't figured out that they don't have total control of the media anymore!

 

[idd]

A lie, according to Webster's, is; "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive".

It's also making a false statement with reckless disregard for the truth thereof.

All of those silly little Bush "lies" the lefties like to cite are either mis-statements or mistakes.

LOL. You think you're arguing with a leftist.....

There is no evidence that President Bush knew those statements to be false when he said them.

That would be even worse! That would imply gross incompetence on his part.

Actually, when Bush said that Saddam had WMD, he probably believed it to be true. But all those other mis-statements by him, Rummy, Cheney, et al.? <shrug> Call me crazy, but I think I was lied to somewhere along the way.

Ms. Rice has testified for over 4 hours, under oath, to the commission in private

OK, OK, pardon me. Let me clarify my statement: Dr. Rice should get her butt down there and answer questions under oath, under the bright lights. And replay the hearings so that those of us who work during the day can watch them at night. There shouldn't be any secret testimony before the Congressional 9/11 Commission. We should demand the *whole* truth, regardless of whose career gets flushed in the wake.

The left keeps putting out these war criminals (Kerry) and liers [sic](Clarke)

OK, I'll bite. In August 2002 Clarke gave a background briefing to Fox News. In this briefing he made some statements which appear to contradict the thrust of one of his arguments that he subsequently set forth in his book. (BTW, background briefing means that the news agency agrees not release the name of the official giving the brief. Appears that Fox News may have breached its promise here.)

This is how Richard Clarke explained it: "When you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice." One "choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did."

When you are part of an organization - be it a gov agency of a company - and your job is to articulate that org's policy, emphasize its strong points and downplay its weaknesses, then that's what you do if you want to keep your job - even if you personally do not fully embrace every jot and tittle. If you are a soldier and are given orders to take a certain hill, you don't argue and tell the people around you, "Well, the commander told us to take this hill, but I think that we'd be better off taking that other hill over there." If you are a deputy and pick up a batch of warrants from the clerk's office in the morning, it's not your job to argue. You click your heels, salute your CO, and execute the mission. If you find the mission to be just too objectionable, then you resign. Welcome to the real world.

Look, folks, the criticisms in Clarke's book go way beyond his contention that Bush didn't meet with him early enough. Clarke has plenty of criticism for CIA, FBI, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc. We had agencies not sharing information, agencies too afraid that they would be blamed if a mission went wrong, bureaucratic lethargy ("well, maybe he is right, but let's study it some more, then hold some more meetings, then run it past Justice..."), missed chances, inadequate resources, bad communication among the principals, ideological blinders, and feckless "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who'd just as soon piss on the American infidel's leg as "help" him. As in "you caught the band of terrorists who did the latest bombing? Great! Now would you hold them a couple of days so that our FBI can interrogate them? What's that? You've already beheaded them all? Well thanks a lot! Some friend you are, Prince Bandar!"

Republicans, Democrats, I don't care. Do *any* of our leaders have the cojones to stand up the rotten Saudi monarchy?

It also appears that Richard Clarke will soon be under investigation to see if he lied to the House Intellegence [sic] Committee. Apparently his testimony, under oath, in 2002 is directly contradicted by his book. And according to l John Lehman, member of the 9-11 committee, Mr. Clarke's public testimony yesterday is in contradiction to his testimony given previously in private.

Well let's wait and see what they got on him. In the meantime, don't take my word or anyone else's word on what Clarke wrote. Go read it yourself.

Now then, I got work to do so I will disappear for a few days.

BTW, thanks to the mods for letting this debate go on despite the heat and, as they say in diplomatic circles, "frank exchange of views." Most other sites would have shut it down and tombstoned half the participants as "disruptors" a long time ago.