Comments on: Manning Clark, agent of influence?

By: James O'Neill

James O'Neill — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What is it with Mr Sparrow. He cannot ever mention the events of 11 September 2001 without some dig at “9/11 truthers”. Has he ever bothered to acquaint himself with the facts? Can he explain how WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 fell at near freefall speed which is literally impossible other than in situations of controlled demolitions? Can he explain how the designated scapegoats were able to organise for the US air force to stand down from normal operating procedures for up to two hours? There are literally dozens of other questions that the official conspiracy theory does not explain. Perhaps he derives a measure of comfort from not confronting awkward questions.
He is entitled to live in his science free bubble and feed off official fairy stories. He probably believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut gunman who killed JFK. He can take similar comfort from that fairy tale as well. What I suggest he should not do is use his position to cast cheap shots at those who bother to explore the hard questions and demand proper answers.
I am in the Brisbane phone book Mr Sparrow. If you want to debate the matter in a rational manner feel free to call me.

By: David Stephens

David Stephens — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And what a fascinating page of the Oz it was on Saturday. We had Peter Kelly, “freelance journalist” but presumably the same red-baiting pot-stirrer who dates back to the late Max Newton and the late Billy McMahon (don’t the spear-carriers ever follow their principals into the back-numbers of history?). On the same page we had Christopher Pearson sanctifying Max Teichmann, who has actually passed on to wherever side-changing intellectual tarts go. Teichmann was a nice enough guy as a leftie (he taught me at Monash in the sixties) but even in those days he gave the impression that his best was behind him. It was sad to hear that he had taken the Windschuttle path (I knew him slightly also when he was some sort of Maoist) and become a court jester for the Right. These thinly disguised promo pieces for the Quadrant crew really need to carry a health warning. But then the same could be said for the whole paper!

By: Matthew Brennan

Matthew Brennan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The whole Clarke as spy assertion is doubtful primarily because Manning Clake was an academic first at the University of Melbourne and subsequently at ANU till Clarke retired in 1974. Clarke therefore did not work for the federal government directly and could not personally have had access to the confidential information which would have been of interest to the Soviets. Unless he was running a network of moles in the federal public service then all Clarke could have reported to Moscow was gossip from the faculty tea room. I doubt this would have earned Clarke the Order of Lenin although I daresay Paul Kelly will continue to believe otherwise.