Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

For those who say our president is leading the war on terror with resolve and determination, I ask: Why doesn't he seem to care at all about the bastard who was most directly responsible for the 9/11 deaths, Osama bin Laden?


The Unnamed Enemy

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, August 12, 2004; 11:19 AM

In his brand new campaign ad, President Bush vows to "bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again." (Here's the video. Here's the text.)

An enemy? Any enemy in particular?

Although there are certainly lots of enemies out there, public enemy number one is obviously al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

But Bush didn't mention bin Laden -- who, just six days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Bush said he wanted "dead or alive," and who, almost three years later, is still at large.

Reader Frank Grunder e-mailed me a while back to ask: Just when was the last time Bush did actually speak about bin Laden explicitly?

So I did some research (using the very handy and highly recommended Compilation of Presidential Documents database.)

And what I found is that Bush treats bin Laden a lot like those wizards in the Harry Potter books treat He Who Must Not Be Named.

Since the beginning of 2003, in fact, Bush has mentioned bin Laden's name on only 10 occasions. And on six of those occasions it was because he was asked a direct question.

In addition, there were four times when Bush was asked about bin Laden directly but was able to answer without mentioning bin Laden's name himself.

Not once during that period has he talked about bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive.

During the same period, for comparison purposes, Bush has mentioned former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on approximately 300 occasions.

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ion/whbriefing

That just goes to show what a great PR job Bush has done on putting the War on Terror focus on Iraq. Osama doesn't matter, we need to attack Iraq. Somehow it just doesn't pan out. But facts and real goals haven't been this administration's strong suit.

Does it really matter how many times he says the word 'Osama"? Get real. It doesn't mean there arent covert operations, intelligence gathering operations or actual search patrols actively looking for him because Bush hasn't said his name. Why make this guy MORE of a world celebrity than he already is?

Come to think of it, Bush hasn't said the word marajuana his entire presidency. I guess that means he doesn't care if your kids start hotboxing the house while you're on vacation.

Oh, yeah, and the people who were MOST directly responsible for 9/11 are dead. They were the cowards who hijacked the planes.

Originally Posted by bmulligan Does it really matter how many times he says the word 'Osama"? Get real. It doesn't mean there arent covert operations, intelligence gathering operations or actual search patrols actively looking for him because Bush hasn't said his name. Why make this guy MORE of a world celebrity than he already is? Come to think of it, Bush hasn't said the word marajuana his entire presidency. I guess that means he doesn't care if your kids start hotboxing the house while you're on vacation. Oh, yeah, and the people who were MOST directly responsible for 9/11 are dead. They were the cowards who hijacked the planes.

So Bush's refusal to talk about our number one nemesis isn't because he's embarrassed that he let the guy get away, but that he doesn't want the guy to have any more notoriety? Get real.

Originally Posted by bmulligan Oh, yeah, and the people who were MOST directly responsible for 9/11 are dead. They were the cowards who hijacked the planes.

That whole "coward" thing is bullshit.

You don't go out an die taking 3,000 people out with you after months of planning because you are a coward.


And by the way, Bush's freinds, the Saudis, have closer relations to the hijackers than the Taliban, so why don't we attack them?

Originally Posted by Quackzilla That whole "coward" thing is bullshit. You don't go out an die taking 3,000 people out with you after months of planning because you are a coward.

I've seen you say some stupid and strange stuff on this board but this takes the cake by far. The terrorists are a true definiation of a coward, they took planes by force after they had hours of terrorist and combat training while the planes were filled with men, women and children with no traning or combat experience whatsoever. It's no different than a 7 foot bully picking on a 4 foot kid, if you don't think that's cowardly you need a serious reality check. In the end when the people on the plane did fight back the cowardly teeriosts lost out. Not to mention the fact that crashing the planes into the tower was hitting another group that couldn't fight back they were just going into work like you and me do everyday...You know I'm finished trying to rationalize your idiotic statement, it's much much easier to just call you a moron.

That's wy his name is Quack-zillla.

Originally Posted by dennis_t So Bush's refusal to talk about our number one nemesis isn't because he's embarrassed that he let the guy get away, but that he doesn't want the guy to have any more notoriety? Get real.

You really have selective hearing, don't you? Yes, Bush is embarassed because he SINGLE-HANDEDLY let Bin Laden get away. He was the one who forgot to load his rifle and fell asleep during night watch and Bin Laden tiptoed out of afganistan. Even today he can't bring himself to speak the name of the girl in highschool who dumped him because of his small pee-pee. The noteriety aspect could be a small part of the psychological aspect of this war. This whole nuance thing is new to you, isn't it?

You probably think that Jonah actually got swallowed by a giant fish and lived for 3 days in his stomach because it says so in the bible, don't you.... ? (that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it)

I've been doing some thinking, and I realized that Bush hasn't yet addressed the problem of foot fungus during his tenure in office. I looked it up and realized he has mentioned foot fungus exactly twice, but NEVER in an offical speech or memo, only in off camera, unmiked comments to aides before or after appearances. In fact, an inter office white house memo actually FORBIDS the purchasing or posession of Dessonex or any athlete's foot products in the entire District of Colombia.

I believe this is a right wing conspiracy to propagate foot fungus until it evolves, develops conciousness and infiltrates the Democratic party and brings about their destruction from the constant burning and itching.

Come to think of it ...... <typing> search : hemmoroids <enter> ....

I'll post again on my upcoming research.....

Originally Posted by bmulligan I've been doing some thinking, and I realized that Bush hasn't yet addressed the problem of foot fungus during his tenure in office. I looked it up and realized he has mentioned foot fungus exactly twice, but NEVER in an offical speech or memo, only in off camera, unmiked comments to aides before or after appearances. In fact, an inter office white house memo actually FORBIDS the purchasing or posession of Dessonex or any athlete's foot products in the entire District of Colombia. I believe this is a right wing conspiracy to propagate foot fungus until it evolves, develops conciousness and infiltrates the Democratic party and brings about their destruction from the constant burning and itching. Come to think of it ...... <typing> search : hemmoroids <enter> .... I'll post again on my upcoming research.....

You are saying that catching Osama bin Ladin is as important as foot fungus.

You right wing nut jobs really amaze me.
First you say Bush is strong on terror but now that he failed at that and put it aside getting the terrorists doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Quack-zilla You are saying that catching Osama bin Ladin is as important as foot fungus. You right wing nut jobs really amaze me. First you say Bush is strong on terror but now that he failed at that and put it aside getting the terrorists doesn't matter.

Satire is lost on the immature and inebrieated. No, it's MORE important than foot fungus......

I was making fun of dennis_t's profound analysis that Bush was embarassed about Bin Laden and the proof was that he hadn't mentioned his name. Don't they still make Jonathan Swift required reading in highschool anymore?

It's really a shame they've eliminated the analogy portion of the SAT, but now I realize why they had to.......

You really have selective hearing, don't you? Yes, Bush is embarassed because he SINGLE-HANDEDLY let Bin Laden get away. He was the one who forgot to load his rifle and fell asleep during night watch and Bin Laden tiptoed out of afganistan. Even today he can't bring himself to speak the name of the girl in highschool who dumped him because of his small pee-pee. The noteriety aspect could be a small part of the psychological aspect of this war. This whole nuance thing is new to you, isn't it? You probably think that Jonah actually got swallowed by a giant fish and lived for 3 days in his stomach because it says so in the bible, don't you.... ? (that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it)

You know, your sad attempts at sarcasm don't work very well as argument.

Bush blew his chance to nab bin Laden by going into Afghanistan with too few troops. This is something that he, and he alone, must answer for. It was his administration's choice to half-ass the invasion and not secure the country's borders, and bin Laden slipped through our fingers. He's still out there now, plotting against us, and it's directly Bush's fault.

Now, how about answering with an argument that doesn't slip into absurd tirades about "pee pees"?

Originally Posted by bmulligan Satire is lost on the immature and inebrieated. No, it's MORE important than foot fungus...... I was making fun of dennis_t's profound analysis that Bush was embarassed about Bin Laden and the proof was that he hadn't mentioned his name. Don't they still make Jonathan Swift required reading in highschool anymore?

Actually, bmulligan, I think he was calling you on the fact that you're making a truly dumbass argument.

Bush has not declared war on foot fungus, or marijuana, or any of the other problems you can come up with. But he has declared War on Terror, and makes a hell of a lot of political hay with said war, and the fact that he can't seem to be bothered to speak about the number-one enemy in the War on Terror says a lot about his prosecution of that war.

I don't think Swift would be making such a dipshit analysis.

You know it's funny. I always see this really VICIOUS sarcasm coming from the Right Wing towards the people who slant left or are at all lean left from THEIR position. Maybe I'm wrong though maybe it's just Neocons.

Originally Posted by Sarang01 You know it's funny. I always see this really VICIOUS sarcasm coming from the Right Wing towards the people who slant left or are at all lean left from THEIR position. Maybe I'm wrong though maybe it's just Neocons.

It stems from the fact that they are convinced their worldview is the only correct one, and anyone who belives differently from them is a fool and a moron. Rush and Fox and all of these other right-wing ideologues pump them full of bad information and hot purpose, then set them loose to spew at will, and God help you if you disagree.

The problem is, treating potential voters like they're idiots is not a very good way to get them to support your man -- a problem Bush now faces.

yea Bush should've just shot a few Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan and been done with it like Clinton would've done.

You know it's funny. I always see this really VICIOUS sarcasm coming from the Right Wing towards the people who slant left or are at all lean left from THEIR position. Maybe I'm wrong though maybe it's just Neocons.

apparently you dont pay attention to all the times that people on these boards that "lean left" have basically posted one huge sarcastic post as some form of rebuttal.

also have you noticed the several threads started which were basically making fun of PAD's posts by posting the exact same thing but a little different?

i'm going to eat right now, but i'll go back later and find some examples for you. Dont try to make it seem like its just us "right wingers."


and for you who said that Bush lost Bin Ladin because he went into Afghanistan with too little troops, you are wrong. We were in a large gun battle with some of the Taliban troops in a valley, and I believe it lasted a day. They called a cease fire and they were going to make negotiations. During the cease fire, Bin Ladin supposedly left Afghanistan and went to pakistan.

Originally Posted by Cracka yea Bush should've just shot a few Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan and been done with it like Clinton would've done. apparently you dont pay attention to all the times that people on these boards that "lean left" have basically posted one huge sarcastic post as some form of rebuttal. also have you noticed the several threads started which were basically making fun of PAD's posts by posting the exact same thing but a little different? i'm going to eat right now, but i'll go back later and find some examples for you. Dont try to make it seem like its just us "right wingers." and for you who said that Bush lost Bin Ladin because he went into Afghanistan with too little troops, you are wrong. We were in a large gun battle with some of the Taliban troops in a valley, and I believe it lasted a day. They called a cease fire and they were going to make negotiations. During the cease fire, Bin Ladin supposedly left Afghanistan and went to pakistan.

Show me the link, Cracka. I've never heard that story.

What bothers me is Bush wants to take lots of pointless troops out of Europe, but he isn't going to send them to Afghanistan he is going to send them back here, does that make sense to anyone?

Originally Posted by dennis_t It stems from the fact that they are convinced their worldview is the only correct one, and anyone who belives differently from them is a fool and a moron. Rush and Fox and all of these other right-wing ideologues pump them full of bad information and hot purpose, then set them loose to spew at will, and God help you if you disagree. The problem is, treating potential voters like they're idiots is not a very good way to get them to support your man -- a problem Bush now faces.

Are you talking about yourself here? Cause if you replace Rush and Fox with The NYTimes and ABC it sounds just like you just described a Liberal. Absolute textbook democratic procedure - accuse your opponent of using the underhanded tactics you have been using all along. Say it often enough, and people start believing it's the truth. Did you go to the the Terry McAuliffee school of democratic indoctrination? If you haven't, then you definitely deserve an honorary degree.

And please tell me you don't think John Kerry isn't treating you like an idiot. You can't be THAT naive...

Oh. My. Whateveryoubelievein.

I can't believe you just posted that.