"...the motives of the anti's are irrelevant. The issue is not their motives, but BC's actions and motives...."
j_b, again you raise a number of interesting points. Since I'm really short of time, let me respond to just one of them, for now.
Apparently, I did not make it clear enough that I was listing not "debating points," or "positions," but "concerns," which I hoped someone out there might address, and hopefully alleviate.
I was not saying that because a "right-winger" makes a charge it is therefore, ipso facto, incorrect. I have done my best, I think, to avoid "name-calling," "blame-shifting," as you put it.
What I was saying is that, yes, I AM worried about the motives of the vociferous organized anti-Clinton "movement." That is a psychological reality, not an argument.
That psychological reality will inevitably color my perception of the issues, much as I might not want it to.
For example, I might be more likely than jlallen, say, to believe the charge that Ken Starr misrepresented certain facts in order to obtain Janet Reno's consent to widen his investigation to include the Paula Jones/Lewinsky matter. That is, I would be more likely to believe that a sort of "sting operation" was being put in place here. This, in turn, would affect my assessment of the seriousness of any lies the President may have uttered during his testimony in the case.
That does NOT mean I would immediately conclude the charges were true, just because they were being made against people I do not trust. (I have here deliberately used an example of an issue I have not looked into at all.)
Incidentally, I do not think it is possible to treat the "issues" in the abstract, apart from the context in which they arose, as desirable as that might appear to be. The Clinton investigation(s) did not spring out of nowhere; somebody wanted them to be undertaken, and for certain reasons. And those reasons are going to affect how the issues are presented and perceived.
As Max Weber once observed, perfect objectivity is not possible. We can approach objectivity, according to Weber, only insofar as we recognize, and make allowances for, just this inability to be completely objective. (From which it follows that the most unobjective person of all is the one who insists he/she is perfectly objective!)
Beyond that, I am truly concerned about whether the organized anti-Clinton crowd is going to go after Gore, if they succeed in getting rid of Clinton. Many of them SAY they plan to. This certainly affects my position. As I pointed out, I, for one, might otherwise join in the demand for the President's resignation. Why go through the effort of persuading the President to resign, if the whole thing is only going to start all over again with his successor? I have asked this question many times, but without getting much of a response.
Can you alleviate my concerns on this score?
jbe |
