
Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 18
I'm away from home this weekend, so this will be brief.
Anonymous
Not for nothing, but it rings hollow when you anonymously call someone a coward. "Anonymous," the author of a book blasting Bush, must be a Slashdot AC.
Putin
Not too many Bush-haters are talking about the fact that Putin warned the U.S. -- after 9/11 and before the war on Iraq -- that Hussein was planning terrorist attacks in the U.S. But what I really want to know is why the Bush administration didn't mention it as more evidence to go to war.
Regardless, it should be instructive to us all that the government knows a lot more than it says about many things, and the things it leaves out don't necessarily make it look bad.
Oil Prices
My local gas stations were up near (and over) $2.30/gallon recently. Now some of them are down to under $2, at $1.999. Funny, I was told by Bush-haters that gas prices wouldn't be dropping any time soon.
Yup. (Score:2)
From where I sit, most stongly agreed.
I would tend to suspect that the administration didn't present that little nugget simply to protect the information that the Russians were supplying us information. Doing so could have potentially dried up that source of information. Especially as the Russians were publicly posturing (and I believe hone
Putin (Score:1)
Another thing is that he may just as well be deceiving the public. Right now, he's saying that Russian intelligence had this in
Re:Putin (Score:2)
replies (Score:1)
If a cop asks you who you are, tell them. They are doing their job. Their job is to gather information. And they can't very well do that if they don't know who you are. Cops don't have enough time to just wander around and ask questions to any random person, they have jobs to do.
Putin
Agreed. If there was anything that might have been interesting to cover, this would have been it. But that would have interrupted the Abu Ghraib horse beating.
Oil Prices/em>
Must be that we finally fig
Re:replies (Score:2)
Re:replies (Score:1)
Re:replies (Score:1)
Clarke (Score:2)
I assume the reason Bush didn't comment on Putin's evidence is that it was obviously wrong. And even Putin couldn't back up Bush's claim that Saddam aided the 9/11 hijackers. Meanwhile, here's someone whose opinion is probably a great deal more informed and valuable, wouldn't you say?
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
Ironically, last night I caught a Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial that began with some ominous narration about members of the bin Laden family being mysteriously swept out of the US after the attacks. Can even Michael Moore get to the bottom of that matter?
Oh, wait -- wasn't it actually our friend Richard Clarke who was responsible?
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
Was the fact that it was Clarke's decision even m
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
So far what you've shown is that at least one person who disagrees with Bush's policies has made at least one mistake in his life. I assume you had some kind of point beyond that.
If you're so curious about Fahrenheit 9/11, you should go see it. But no, as I recall, Clarke was onscreen for maybe 10 seconds,
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
I was, of course, speaking hyperbole. Clarke stood by his decision to allow them to leave the country, but no liberals are attacking him for it. It's just kinda funny.
no, as I recall, Clarke was onscreen for maybe 10 seconds, and the role he's claimed in this was not discussed.
Predictably.
So you think there was nothing wrong with whisking Osam
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
How could you dare call something obvious you have no evidence of?
And even Putin couldn't back up Bush's claim that Saddam aided the 9/11 hijackers.
You're a liar: Bush never claimed that.
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
"Dare"? You're in a grumpy mood today :)
I meant that I assumed it was obvious to Bush and our government that the evidence was wrong. Bush has already shown his eagerness to claim the truth of all evidence which might help back his position, no matter whether it is questionable, unsubstantiated, or indeed already refuted. I need not show examples of this; they are legion. For something to be un-Bush-worthy, I assume it must be obvious, ev
Re:Clarke (Score:2)
Yes, and I meant you have no evidence to support this. Was I unclear?
Bush has already shown his eagerness to claim the truth of all evidence which might help back his position, no matter whether it is questionable, unsubstantiated, or indeed already refuted. I need not show examples of this; they are legion. For something to be un-Bush-worthy, I assume it must be obvious, even to the dim, that it is factual
Anonymous (Score:2)
Since the book won't be released until next month, you clearly haven't read it yet. Doesn't it seem a bit coward-like to attack somehting you know nothing about? Perhaps the author (yet another "senior official"...) has a very valid reason for publishing the book anonymously. Until we know more about the book and its content, it is impossible to attack the
Re:Anonymous (Score:2)
I only criticized one thing: that he called Bush a coward. And that is one of the few things I know about it. I don't think you actually have a point here. If someone can't see the irony of his own words in anonymously calling someone else a coward, well, he is obviously a bit deficient.
Perhaps the author (yet another "senior official"...) has a very valid reason for publishing the book anonymously.
Irrelevant to my point.