The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
Posts: 9,270
Political Matrix E: 0.13, S: -1.23
|
|
« Reply #50 on: October 15, 2004, 07:25:15 PM » |
|
Nym,
My point was not whether Clinton should be impeached, it is to show that smart and rational are two different things. Clinton came up with the answer he wanted to arrive at and was smart enough to find a way to get it. That is smart, not rational. Rational is what 99% of Americans did, which is to say "That Clinton guy is full of crap, of course he had sex with Monica."
Whether he should be impeached or not is a seperate argument, and has automatic "right" answer. My feeling is that the Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors", not "high crimes and misdemeanors that might affect job performance". However, there is a rational other side on the impeachment question, whereas there is no rational claim, no matter how clever, that exists regarding the question of whether he did or did not have sex with that woman
I think Huck Finn's claim on Iran is similar. He is trying to rationalize his candidate's position, and he's smart enough to find a way to ease his own mind. However, the objective reality is that Kerry's position on Iran is hazardous, and in the debates he offered the Iranians nuclear fuel with no (verifiable) strings attached. This is psychotically irresponsible. Not only is Huck's defense of Kerry irrational, even though he himself is undeniably smart, but Kerry's position itself is also irrational. Kerry tries to explain why Iran isn't so dangerous and confrontation isn't required to stop them, just as Huck tries to explain why Kerry actually can defend America and Israel.
Kerry wants Iran to be a non-threat. So he finds a way to explain it as such. Huck wants Kerry to be defensible on the issue of Iran. So he finds a way to explain it as such. Clinton wants to be innocent of banging an intern. So he finds a way to ecplain it as such. All are smart people, yet none are being rational.
|