October 3, 2002
8:07 AM   Subscribe

Osama bin Laden hasn't been mentioned in a presidential speech in seven months.
posted by trioperative (22 comments total)
 
...this is where the warmongers come in with their beliefs:

I believe Bush knows what he's doing
I trust the Govt. are taking care of this
I believe the CIA are on the case
I believe...I believe...

any objective way of justifying this (what must be) deliberate ignorance.
posted by niceness at 8:19 AM on October 3, 2002


apologies: missed the final question mark

any objective way of justifying this (what must be) deliberate ignorance?
posted by niceness at 8:20 AM on October 3, 2002


Who? Wasn't he Saddam's flunky or something?
posted by norm29 at 8:24 AM on October 3, 2002


any objective way of justifying this (what must be) deliberate ignorance?

Technically, the anthrax mailer is among us. Would you prefer that the President refer to this threat more often, if only to cause postal rates to further increase and cause more distrust toward a very reliable service?

Osama is still out there; our government is still searching for him and his cronies for one reason or another: either to kill him, or use him as a scapegoat for the American public's concerns. I hardly think constant reference to a known terrorist is a good idea.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:25 AM on October 3, 2002


Honestly, why would anyone try to be objective about this? I'm sure Bush is following the "out of sight, out of mind" tenet that any politician, Republican or Democrat would follow. I truly don't think this is a unique Republican trait.
posted by byort at 8:25 AM on October 3, 2002


Keith Koffler, White House reporter for Congress Daily, was puzzled. "How many Democrats support this bipartisan bill?" he asked. "I'm not aware of any more than one Democrat."

"Well," Fleischer replied, "that certainly does make it bipartisan."

"So that's the new definition of bipartisan?" Koffler inquired.

"I think, frankly, that's the old definition of bipartisan," Fleischer rejoined. "I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the definition of bipartisan changed."


You gotta love Ari Fleischer.
posted by NekulturnY at 8:31 AM on October 3, 2002


I'm not surprised by the Duyba administration's constant attempts at misdirection. However, I really getting tired of the ignorant masses believing every damn thing he says. When did trusting politicians come back into popularity?
posted by quirked at 8:32 AM on October 3, 2002




Osama is still out there; our government is still searching for him and his cronies for one reason or another: either to kill him, or use him as a scapegoat for the American public's concerns. I hardly think constant reference to a known terrorist is a good idea.

Then why can't Bush open his mouth without saying Saddam? The entire point is that Bush has picked a new scapegoat without telling the public why.

If the U.S. hadn't fucked up royally on multiple occasions across multiple presidencies and actually managed to perform the apparently impossible task of catching a 75-year old man with liver failure, whoever was in power at the time would be mentioning it day in day out. The GOP sold fund-raising photos of Bush on the phone "being presidential" on 9/11, do you really think they wouldn't use a photo of Osama being dragged into the Hague by Bush-led special forces in some kind of promotional opportunity if they had one?

Bush thought getting Osama would be easy, so he spun 9/11 around a magical victory that would occur somehow if only this one evil man was brought to justice. Having failed to do that, he's trying to avoid mentioning it as much as possible, because using his own spin would make it appear as though Operation Enduring Freedom was a complete and total failure, having accomplished 0% of the 1 goal Bush made it appear to have.

To his credit, it makes sense: knowing the way the media works, Bush making a speech with the word "Osama" or even something that sounds like it ("I saw ma Daddy on the ranch today?") in any context would be used on the pundit shows to jumpstart another line of bickering about it. (Much as we've done with this thread... whoa.)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:58 AM on October 3, 2002


Osama not being mentioned = war on terrorism has been off for a long time now.

War on Iraq = need the oil baby.

fucking politics....
posted by pyr at 9:11 AM on October 3, 2002


That was deep, pyr.
posted by dhoyt at 9:24 AM on October 3, 2002


I hardly think constant reference to a known terrorist is a good idea.

Nice false dichotomy, bluetrain. Either never mention him, or constantly mention him. Hey, here's a third possibility: How about he occasionally mentions him with reference to the War on Terror, since "brioging Osama Bin Laden to justice" is one of the objectives of said war?
posted by Hildago at 9:29 AM on October 3, 2002


Nice false dichotomy, bluetrain. Either never mention him, or constantly mention him.

Interesting interpretation, Hildago. My point...this isn't news. Move along because Saddam, like Osama, or Condit, Lewinsky, Gingrich, etc. are all buzz words used to incite the public. Let's all take XQetc.'s lead now and overreact violently.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2002


Let's all take XQetc.'s lead now and overreact violently.

"Violently?" You must be a very fragile person, BlueTrain. That also explains why you claim to feel perfectly safe and warm and fuzzy knowing that the government is still after Osama, even though they haven't somehow mentioned him for the last five months or so, directly following a period in which they mentioned him multiple times per day.

Care to explain why? I as well as many others don't exaclty feel secure when we inquire about something that we are given countlesspress clips about and then all of a sudden are permanently given the runaround. How is questioning a blatant change in attitude overreacting?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:13 AM on October 3, 2002


That story didn't have much content. Must have been a slow news day.

Look, bin Laden hasn't been mentioned because there's no news on him. There's no news on him because there's been no progress in finding him. There's no progress in finding him probably because he's dead. He was looking very bad in the last photos we saw of him, renal failure, or whatever, and he may have had a paralyzed arm.

Not much of a story. Why are people yelling at each other?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:42 AM on October 3, 2002


There's no news on him because there's been no progress in finding him. There's no progress in finding him probably because he's dead.

Blaze of publicity, fail miserably - hard luck, good try.

Has it always been this easy for the President and security services? to think "The buck stops here" is an US cliche.
posted by niceness at 11:40 AM on October 3, 2002


Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain. Go About Your Business As Usual. Report All "Agitators" To Your Local Block Commander.
posted by owillis at 12:10 PM on October 3, 2002


When did trusting politicians come back into popularity?
Why, 9/11 of course! War on Terror, rah rah rah, y'know?
posted by ac at 1:10 PM on October 3, 2002


Possible reason Osama is never mentioned?
posted by rushmc at 3:02 PM on October 3, 2002


Saddam, like Osama, or Condit, Lewinsky, Gingrich, etc. are all buzz words used to incite the public.

So it is your view that to express concern that our elected officials work to "incite the public" is to overreact?
posted by rushmc at 3:04 PM on October 3, 2002


The bush administration has successfully pulled a Bugs Bunny on the American public:

It's Osama season!
It's Osama season!
It's Osama season!
It's Saddam season!
It's Saddam season!
It's Saddam season!

Very few seem to have noticed. By the way rushmc, that editorial in the Atlana Journal-Constitution is spot-on, I think.
posted by Potsy at 4:55 PM on October 3, 2002


You gotta love Ari Fleischer.

Not as much as I love CJ in hip-huggers...
posted by baylink at 9:27 PM on October 3, 2002


« Older   |   A Gentleman's Battle Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments