« Scott McClellan smears Helen Thomas | Main | Harriet Miers is memorable »

October 15, 2005

Comments

Well, he's actually not saying that Bush (or his cronies) is an imminent danger. He's saying that their "reckless abuse of power" is an imminent danger.
And one can argue that one's tactics are dangerous (that they could, for instance, strengthen the power of the executive too much) without saying that the person is.

i disagree. while i generally don't think too hard about the language police thing, i would argue that if the katrina debacle and the threat of FEMAvilles and unqualified appointees to the supreme court doesn't qualify as imminent danger to the nation than what does?

would bush have to threaten the use of nuclear weapons?

actually scrap all that. kennedy should be arguing that bush HAS ALREADY put the nation in danger and must be stopped. i would say that cronyism, and the mis-use of american military force has already put the nation in danger. so yes, i object to the word imminent too.

Dude, its direct mail. You might as well be an anonymous internet commentator for all anyone cares about rhetorical overreach.

The comments to this entry are closed.