Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 18

Journal by pudge

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.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    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's revelation raises quite a few questions. First of all, why did he do it in the manner he did? From the way the press have covered this event, it seems that he made this remark in a quite casual manner. "Oh yeah, by the way, Saddam planned terrorist attacks against the US. Not that it changes anything, though." Well, why the hell did you reveal this then? What's your motive?

    Another thing is that he may just as well be deceiving the public. Right now, he's saying that Russian intelligence had this in

    • All good questions, all things I'd thought of. And I have no answers. If I were a Democrat though -- and I was posing the question I asked for the sake of Bush-haters -- I'd not consider the truth of the intelligence, since we all "know" Bush doesn't care about truth when he is trying to make the case for war. ;-)
  • Anonymous

    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

  • Clarke (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    Wow, you think the opinion of countries like Russia is interesting? What other countries opposed to military intervention in Iraq do you think have interesting opinions?

    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?

    ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- The invasion of Iraq was an

    • Meanwhile, here's someone whose opinion is probably a great deal more informed and valuable, wouldn't you say?

      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?

      • Yes; and?
        • The point that Bush-haters -- like you -- avoid is that they simultaneously assert there is something wrong with getting those people out of the country, and that Clarke has the correct view of 9/11 and the correct course of action before and following it. They won't attack Clarke on this because they don't want to damage the credibility they grant to him, so they just skip over him and his belief that it was the right thing to do, and directly attack Bush.

          Was the fact that it was Clarke's decision even m
          • Can you quote a Bush-hater -- like me and Clarke, apparently -- saying that Clarke always performed "the correct course of action before and following" 9/11? Tip: Clarke himself explicitly denies this.

            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,

            • Can you quote a Bush-hater -- like me and Clarke, apparently -- saying that Clarke always performed "the correct course of action before and following" 9/11?

              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
    • I assume the reason Bush didn't comment on Putin's evidence is that it was obviously wrong.

      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.

      • How could you dare call something obvious you have no evidence of?

        "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

        • I meant that I assumed it was obvious to Bush and our government that the evidence was wrong.

          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
  • 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.

    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

    • Doesn't it seem a bit coward-like to attack somehting you know nothing about?

      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra

Close