Who put a traitor back in charge?
August 1, 2003 9:43 AM   Subscribe

Long overdue: Pointdexter to resign
This Pointdexter

posted by magullo (13 comments total)
If you're referring to Dr. John Poindexter, then you'll be sorry to hear that this has no effect regarding his appointment as head of Total Information Awareness.
posted by e.e. coli at 9:51 AM on August 1, 2003

well done, matgullo
posted by techgnollogic at 10:04 AM on August 1, 2003

I'm totally aware that his must have inspired a bunch of smaller creeps to emulate his behavior while he lasted. And just what rock he crawls under to seed new roots in private industry can really only be imagined.

Cheney did OK in the private sector, what can Poindexter do?
posted by Busithoth at 10:13 AM on August 1, 2003

And in the context of that background, it became in some ways very difficult for him to receive an objective reading of work that he was doing on behalf of finding terrorists," the official said.

Ah. Those convictions of wrongdoing tend to follow you around even if you're only given a slap on the wrist? If only this would work for Microsoft, too.

Of course, didn't Perle's "resignation" not effect much?
posted by weston at 10:31 AM on August 1, 2003

Cheney did OK in the private sector, what can Poindexter do?

Sure, if, by OK, you mean engaging in fraudulent accounting practices.
posted by jnthnjng at 10:44 AM on August 1, 2003

Just for the record, it's Poindexter , not Pointdexter. Either way, he's still a supercreep.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:07 AM on August 1, 2003

Ok, smarty, go to a party.
girls are scantilly clad and showin' body,
a chick walks by, ya wish ya could sex her,
but she's in another world like you was Poindexter.

posted by grabbingsand at 11:24 AM on August 1, 2003

"Either way, he's still a supercreep."

He's a supercreep
He's supercreepy, yeeow.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:26 AM on August 1, 2003

I am genuinely confounded by the Futures Fund controversy. I don't know what to think about it.

On the one hand, I can totally see the logic in setting up the fund. Once it's there, you basically bring all the research and analysis resources the economy has to offer to bear on it. The CIA can only find out so much. But private analysis and research resources are potentially unlimited. What better way to apply all those resources to reserching and modelling the future of the Middle East than to create a futures fund for it?

On the other hand, it is morbid, of questionable deterministic value, prone to abuse, and, for lack of a better term: a giant stinking capitalist pig turd.
posted by scarabic at 11:38 AM on August 1, 2003

Just being paranoid here, I wonder how much of this is preemptive to keep Bush's appointment of convicted perjurers well away from the election spotlight?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2003

Yeah, fair enough, skallas. No one can prove this would provide valuable information. Although whatever information it would have provided could have been heeded or ignored as deemed appropriate by the State Dept. As is, they don't have the option because it doesn't exist, and we can't evaluate it as a tool because it hasn't been tried. In your own write-up, you use the failure of other futures indexes as supporting examples, but argue that this one would have been significantly different. Maybe we should have tried it and let it fail?
posted by scarabic at 5:30 PM on August 1, 2003

Point-dexter >> heh heh, nice typo.
posted by republican at 11:35 PM on August 1, 2003

I can't help thinking that this kind of market fund would have something to contribute to the pool of intelligence resources.

I mean, consider the reliability of other intelligence sources our national security decisions are being made on. You're pretty dismissive of any data to come out of a futures fund, but do anonymous tipsters, questioned detainees, and a sea of recorded phone calls, emails, and other conversations exactly comprise a "reliable" intelligence outlook?

Like I said, I can't help believeing that at some point in collating all the rest of that data, trying to figure out if a few similar intelligence tips represent a credible threat or just coincidence, a futures fund would be another flawed yet incrementally valuable piece to add to the equation.

The kind of intelligence we needisn't easy to come by. I'm a lot more comfortable with the moral implications of people betting investment money on terrorist attacks than I am with the moral implications of military tribunals and pre-emptive wars.

In the larger context, is it really so easy to write off any creative, inexpensive intelligence source?
posted by scarabic at 12:53 AM on August 3, 2003

« Older Trainspotting   |   Small Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments