October 3, 2002
8:07 AM Subscribe
Osama bin Laden hasn't been mentioned in a presidential speech in seven months.
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
any objective way of justifying this (what must be) deliberate ignorance?
posted by niceness at 8:20 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
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
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
"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
posted by quirked at 8:32 AM on October 3, 2002
"We can't find Osama because Arthur Andersen fucking shredded him!"
posted by Babylonian at 8:33 AM on October 3, 2002
posted by Babylonian at 8:33 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
War on Iraq = need the oil baby.
fucking politics....
posted by pyr at 9:11 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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
Why, 9/11 of course! War on Terror, rah rah rah, y'know?
posted by ac at 1:10 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
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
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
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
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