Collounsbury, you respond to a criticism of being patronizing by being even more patronizing than usual. Good to see you haven’t let me down. I’m reminded why you are oft-pitted, were formerly banned, and are a poster whose words I usually skim over without reading. In short, you’re an ass.
I broke my policy of not interacting with you; you’re too tiresome for it. I shall return to that policy immediately.
What are you talking about?
Sure - among political junkies on the internet. In the mass media it’s called a Pentagon plan and when all is said and done people will identify this scheme with the Pentagon, if they remember it at all in 6 months. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
Ultimately, of course, those guys are Bush appointees and as long as Rummy and Pointy continue to have a job we must assume that Bush completely approves of whatever they are doing. Same goes for Ashcroft and Michael Powell etc.
Has anyone asked the President if he approves of gambling on terrorism? Would Jesus have gambled on terrorism?
Well after my initial knee jerk and some subsequent research, I must say this seems like a pretty good idea. I still only have a vague idea of how it works though. Do people get money only if a terrorist attack occurred at a time they have previously chosen? If so, with there being an attack only every few years it doesn’t seem like a lot of opportunity. Also, if you predict an attack, the prediction draws some investigation, and the attack is thwarted, you wouldn’t make money because the attack never occurred, so what was the point?
What I’m saying is that people profit from nasty things happending to people all the time. Replace “natural disaster” with “crazed bomber with a cause”.
As for Poindexter, the NYTimes has a whole editorial calling on him to be sacked. Though I have to say I’ve never been called a political junkie.
I like it.
Of course now I feel dirty. 