Immediate Threat

[jazzfish]

Donald Rumsfeld caught on video: "You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't." Rumsfeld demands citations, and wriggles about amusingly when presented with them.

I freely admit that my problems with the current President stem in large part from other people's reactions. On the other hand, I'll happily vote Democrat in November, because that's the only possible way to remove John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld from their posts.

(Do I think that things will get better with a regime change? Not immediately. I just think they'll stop getting worse.)

Comments

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

Yes, vote for the man who is opposed to his own voting record (http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200401260838.asp) because it's politically expedient to do so now, and who feels if you say "the economy and job situation is bad" (http://www.kiontv.com/news/news_commentary/story.aspx?content_id=4609AFDA-BB9D-44E4-A94B-325B6A0770FB) enough times people might actually start to believe you regardless of the truth. Spot on! :)

PS: If you didn't read the article, Kerry voted for The Patriot Act and spoke of it with high praise. Of course he'll tell you now it's bad because that's the way to get votes. It seems to be working. I greatly fear for the economy if someone so short sited as Kerry is elected.

[jazzfish]

I find Kerry's stance on the Patriot act troubling. I find it a heck of a lot less troubling than Bush's, though. (viz. "things will stop getting worse.")
(The 'No Child Left Behind' attack in the NRO article is a bit off. What did Kerry actually say? "By signing the NCLB Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has . . . " He's not attacking the act; just the half-assed way in which Bush said 'I commit to children!' and then didn't.)

As for the economy, all I can say is Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Over and over again. If that tactic worked for Iraq, I can't really understand why you'd condemn Kerry for it.

I don't know whether Bush has improved the economy. The dollar has fallen like a rock against the Euro, and I direct your attention to a somewhat creepy anecdote about a CEO who will do just about anything to avoid having to hire anyone new (though the article drifts into country I'm not really able to talk about pretty quickly). I don't have links for hard numbers, because the economy isn't something that I can claim to understand. Hence the "I don't know" at the beginning of this paragraph. Like any good American I get nervous when taxes start going up; like any good poor person I have an innate distrust of the rich (defined as "those whose yearly income exceeds mine by a factor of fifteen or so").

Oh, and "If I didn't read the article" . . . if you're going to go to the trouble of providing backing documentation in such a discussion, please have the decency to not assume I won't read it.

[cxi162.livejournal.com]

the half-assed way in which Bush said 'I commit to children!' and then didn't.

Also from the article: "The funding charge is a canard — overall spending on education under Bush is up 65 percent". This claim, like most of Kerry's claims, is pure FUD.

If that tactic worked for Iraq, I can't really understand why you'd condemn Kerry for it.

Honestly, "nana you did it so why can't we?" Right. Perhaps if the dems hadn't raised an ongoing stink about it, maybe then, but after complaining about it until blue in the face then they turn around and do it themselves? Now that's what I look for in a leader! Someone who complains about something someone else is doing, then feels justified that it's ok if they do it, because they're "right" after all.

This is all irregardless of whether the WMD argument is even valid, given that Saddam himself thought he had WMD's (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lacey051503.asp) and routinely gave order regarding them which were picked up by the intelligence community.

I don't know whether Bush has improved the economy.

I really don't get the short sighted way most people (not necessarily you) look at this. The economy is a HUGE system. I mean REALLY DAMN HUGE. Four years is an insanely short time to have major changes come around from the downturn of the prior years. We are only just starting to see the beginning of some of the improvements. What I fear will happen is that Kerry will get elected, then claim all the credit for the economy being good as if the previous four years meant nothing, and only the act of him entering office suddenly made everything ok. That's the attitude he gives off however: "Just elect me and all your problems will instantly be gone (ps: give us more tax money)."

[jazzfish]

Also from the article: "The funding charge is a canard — overall spending on education under Bush is up 65 percent".

But from a NEA report:
"[T]he federal government is not giving states adequate resources to meet the requirements imposed by the so-called "No Child Left Behind" Act — falling short even of the resources the 2-year-old law specifically calls for."
The issue wasn't "is education spending up;" the issue was "did Bush put full support behind NCLB?"

This claim, like most of Kerry's claims, is pure FUD.

Please to be leaving the ad hominem attacks out of this supposedly rational discussion.

Re validity of WMD argument. . . I find the article in question to be a desperate attempt to save face. In return I give you Iraq on the record, in which administration officials change their story repeatedly.

Four years is an insanely short time to have major changes come around from the downturn of the prior years.

While I agree, it's interesting that the downturn didn't really get going 'til about four years ago.

That's the attitude he gives off however: "Just elect me and all your problems will instantly be gone (ps: give us more tax money)."

Funny; that sounds an awful lot like Bush's argument.

To reiterate: I am not voting for Kerry; I am voting against Bush's cabinet.