I happened to see Krauthammer on Brit Hume today, and he invoked his psychiatric credentials in dealing with Howard Dean. Two or three times, he said Howard Dean had lied about things, had made lying statements, and he found this disturbing. But who's the one with the problem? As a psychiatrist, perhaps Krauthammer could evaluate himself, but since it's his own
case, we'd better refer him elsewhere! Or just apply lessons from the show itself!
As we have learned from previous sessions of this show, the problem doesn't really have to do with Dean but the ones making the charges against him. As I recall, it's called hatred. Krauthammer is calling Dean a liar because he hates Dean. A very irrational thing to do!
Plus, we should bear in mind that Dean is a potential commander-in-chief, president of the United States. Since you should never question the commander-in-chief's word, questioning Dean is wrong. Or can you honestly say that the commander-in-chief's word only becomes infallible with the oath of office? It seems to me it'd have to start sometime before the actual election and would lie with the person himself, or is it reasonable that you can go from total error to infallibility with a simple oath on January 20? Any kind of questioning of the commander-in-chief, or in this case someone with a strong potential to attain that position, as I recall, is the same as hatred of America, not to mention a very unpatriotic stance!
And really, any time there appears to be a lie, all we need to do is remember the differences between literal truth, perceived truth, commonplace ways of speaking, folksy exaggeration, and fudging for the sake of national security. When Dean says we're "not any safer" than we were on 9/11, you don't have to take that as a literal truth in some negative way; it could be an exaggeration for the sake of national security so we don't become lax! Very noble, I'd say.
Yes, Krauthammer is irrational on this point, very much so. Afterall, he's top-notch at ferreting the meaning out of President Bush's many statements that could be seen as at variance with the literal truth. For instance, if someone dares suggest that Bush said there was an "imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein, we would have to find those precise words to make such a bizarre case! If the words were "great danger," "big threat," "imminent danger," or "run for your lives," you see, those are not the precise words "imminent threat." But Krauthammer's problem is that the same rules don't apply to members of the other party. That sounds fairly irrational, almost as though there's a problem with truth, but, again, it would be on the part of the observer! If Dean, for example, says, "Saddam was never a threat," but they find a statement where Dean said, "Saddam is a danger," all nuance is out the window! In this case, we count synonyms!
Why do the guys on this panel, Blustering Fred, Stumbling Mort, Charles the Corpse, and Brit the Terrible (we'll leave Mara the Timid and Juan the Easily-Swayed out of the picture at this time)...Why do these irrational people hate Howard Dean so much? They actually hate Dean and they're very unpatriotic!
My other stuff