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

[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.