Yesterday I stated that, in order to counter his plummeting poll numbers, Bush would step up endeavors to catch bin Laden. Liberals commented that he’d have to be doing something in the first place, and Bushies just made snide comments.
So what does Bush do?
He immediately makes a “surprise visit” to Afghanistan. In a story on AOL headlined “Bush vows he will Capture bin Laden” it states:
“He also pledged that Osama bin Laden and other planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would be caught despite a mostly futile five-year hunt.
“It’s not a matter of if they’re captured and brought to justice, it’s when they’re brought to justice,” Bush said, standing side by side in the Afghan capital with President Hamid Karzai.”
Asked about the search for bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States, and of the president’s call for getting him “dead or alive,” Bush said the search for bin Laden and his associates continues.
“I am confident he will be brought to justice,” Bush said. “We’ve got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden. There are Afghan forces on the hunt. … We’ve got Pakistan forces on the hunt.”
Most importantly, kids, he’s got his administration on the hunt…for ways to bring his poll numbers up.
Yes…he’s become Just That Predictable.
PAD
• 
My bet is that someday bin Laden is going to die of natural causes, and low level folks in the US government will try to insinuate that the US had him killed and made it LOOK like natural causes (even though that makes no sense) so that the US doesn’t look so ineffectual.
My how times change.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
– G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
– G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Please tell him to get rid of the freakin’ IRS. All the best.
Bush does understand he can’t run for a third term, right? Unless he’s made some amendments that I haven’t heard about.
Yeah… catching a terrorist maniac should really bump up his numbers, look how good it worked out for him when they lucked out and stumbled upon Saddam.
I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn’t captured during Bush’s watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election. And I honestly don’t dislike Bush that much, because he’s really not that intelligent. It’s his monkey handler advisors that are steering him and this country into chaos.
>I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn’t captured during Bush’s watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.
Yeah, but if the choice were between them, or Billary, I honestly don’t know which way I’d go.
Bush does understand he can’t run for a third term, right? Unless he’s made some amendments that I haven’t heard about.
There’s a mid-term election with every seat in the house theoretically up-for-grabs, and 1/3 of the Senate. (Realistically only a handful are really competitive) There is a hypothesis that the lower the opinion of the President, the less well the President’s party will succeed in those contests that are competitive. Not sure what the statistics are over time on that hypotheshis.
>Yeah, but if the choice were between them, or Billary, I honestly don’t know which way I’d go.
Mr. Rove, is that you?
Peter, wake me up when they finally catch him. Otherwise it’s all just the same balloon juice we’ve been hearing since September 12th, 2001, and frankly, I’m not even sure the American people believe it any more.
Peter said Most importantly, kids, he’s got his administration on the hunt…for ways to bring his poll numbers up. Yes…he’s become Just That Predictable.
He hasn’t cared about poll numbers before… and not now… but instead of stopping by and showing support to Afghanistan and the troops, it’s really all about the polls.
But if Bush hadn’t stopped in Afghanistan, and had simply gone to India… would the argument still be made it’s all about the polls?
Because Bush’s numbers are so low, I put it to the liberals that it really won’t matter what Bush says or does… they’ll suggest that it’s all about bringing his approval numbers up.
If the numbers were that important, Bush would have said no to the Dubai Port World deal. Instead, he did the right thing and stood his ground. That certainly didn’t help his approval numbers. But it was – and is – the right thing to do.
RLR
If you think he doesn’t care about the poll numbers, you’re kidding yourself. And if you think his now-nervous supporters don’t care about the poll numbers and how they could impact on their reelection, you are also kidding yourself.
You’re ignoring the simple fact of my posting, Robert: My statement wasn’t retroactive. I didn’t say that he DID do this in ORDER to pull up his numbers. I said, in advance, that he will very likely do it in order to pull up his numbers. And he did. This wasn’t 20/20 hindsight. It was foresight. So much for your notion that the opinions of this particular liberal would have created a no-win scenario for Bush.
If he’d had this stop in Afghanistan planned for a month, liberals (or at least this liberal) would have said nothing about it. But he dropped it in so suddenly that the timing simply cannot be ignored. And he talked about capturing bin Laden, holding up the bogey man to combat sagging numbers…just as, years ago, when he couldn’t find bin Laden and his numbers were just starting to soften, he held up Saddam to be the new bogeyman. So Saddam was arrested, Iraq is in flames, people are getting killed daily by the carload, civil war still beckons, our soldiers are stuck there…he’s gotta play the only card he’s got left: Find bin Laden. This was the opening salvo…just as I predicted.
PAD
If he’d had this stop in Afghanistan planned for a month, liberals (or at least this liberal) would have said nothing about it. But he dropped it in so suddenly that the timing simply cannot be ignored.
Umm…is it possible that the timing might have something to do with the fact that he was already scheduled to be in India and Pakistan this week? Not trying to be snide, just saying…
In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism.
As for not announcing it beforehand, I trust nobody is too blinded by political partisanship to think that unwise.
Dear ArcLight,
Great quotes. Best part: During the debates with Kerry “I don’t remember saying that. Must be one of those exaggerations.” And then the smirk. And then the red-neck poll numbers come in. Unfortunately red-neck voters don’t watch the Daily Show.
Posted by GammaSpidey at March 1, 2006 12:47 PM
I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn’t captured during Bush’s watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.
*******************
I’m not fond of the W. administration. In fact, I think Clinton, the elder Bush and Reagan were all infinitely better than our current president. Nevertheless, I’m rooting for bin Laden’s capture, and I don’t care who it helps or hurts politically.
I understand that bin Laden is not the totality of Al Qaeda and that his capture will not eradicate the threat from that group. But he founded the group, funded it and was involved in planning many of its despicable terrorist assaults. Capturing him would be a blow to Al Qaeda on a practical and symbolic level.
I don’t like W. I think he’s one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had. But I like bin Laden even less. He’s a murderer, he’s irredeemably evil, and he is an enemy of our country. I take exception to the idea that it would be better for bin Laden to be captured after Bush leaves office. Bin Laden is a dangerous and evil man and we should all be rooting for him to be captured sooner rather than later.
I just wish I could have confidence in the current administration to make that happen.
No fear. I hear Batman is going in after him. (Hey, Bruce Wayne is a Republican, right?)
Catching bin Laden should be a priority, regardless of political affiliation. You only need to look at that hole in lower Manhattan to remember the capacity of evil.
“And he talked about capturing bin Laden, holding up the bogey man to combat sagging numbers…just as, years ago, when he couldn’t find bin Laden and his numbers were just starting to soften, he held up Saddam to be the new bogeyman. So Saddam was arrested, Iraq is in flames, people are getting killed daily by the carload, civil war still beckons, our soldiers are stuck there…he’s gotta play the only card he’s got left: Find bin Laden. This was the opening salvo…just as I predicted.”
You might want to stop patting yourself on the back for a moment and read the transcript of the Bush-Karzai event where the comments were made: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060301.html .
Bush mentions bin Laden not at all in his prepared remarks; the comments about capturing him come only in the press Q&A section. And at least one account of the visit to Afghanistan suggests that reminding people that bin Laden is at large is far from what Bush hoped to get out of his visit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Posted by Joe McKendrick at March 1, 2006 04:26 PM
No fear. I hear Batman is going in after him. (Hey, Bruce Wayne is a Republican, right?)
****************
Batman a Republican? What, are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hëll do you think he is? He’s the gøddámņ Batman!
(I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist.)
Bill & Joe–you know, I’m getting so used to crazy talk that GammaSpidey’s comment went right over my head, but when you think about it, it kind of takes your breath away. Thanks for the dose of reason.
Bill & Joe–you know, I’m getting so used to crazy talk that GammaSpidey’s comment went right over my head, but when you think about it, it kind of takes your breath away. Thanks for the dose of reason.
*********************
You’re welcome. But I warn you, it was my last dose.
“In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism.”
Well, you can imagine it, but there’s not a shred of anything to hang that on. I mean, I can imagine that you and other Bushies won’t bend over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt but, hey…doesn’t mean much.
And yes, Arthur, I know that the comments came in response to press Q&A because, y’know…I can read AND comprehend. However, at a time when his numbers were much stronger–as has been pointed out–Bush was cavalier about bin Laden. But now that his numbers are going south, he unexpectedly shows up in bin Laden’s back yard and makes with the tough talk. Notice his tune has changed as his nubmers dropped. Notice that his itinerary changed as his numbers dropped.
And I’m sorry, but anyone who supports a President who announced “mission accomplished” a mere few years prematurely doesn’t get to make comments about me patting myself on the back.
PAD
“I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn’t captured during Bush’s watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.”
That’s true enough. On the other hand, if the Magic Terrorist Fairy showed up and said that I had the choice of bin Laden being captured under Bush’s watch or not at all, I’d opt for the former.
PAD
Oh, and about Batman taking on Al Qaeda: to me that’s rather distasteful. Batman is a fantasy figure. Even though he lacks “super powers,” does anyone really believe a real human could accomplish the things he does? I think it does a disservice to the brave men and women who are being put through the meat-and-bone-grinder known as war.
(By the way, I think the decision to wage the current war in Iraq was one of the most stupid, bone-headed decisions made by a U.S. administration. I think it’s fair game to rake the administration over the coals for it. But I don’t think it takes away from the bravery, courage and noble sacrifice of our troops in Iraq. Not one whit.)
Granted, it’s not the first time super-heroes have been depicted as fighting in a war. Captain America and Bucky did it in WWII, for instance. But I still find it distasteful.
PAD wrote a wonderful BID column after 9/11 where he alternated between fantasies in which super-heroes prevented or limited the damage from the 9/11 attacks, and reflections about what really happened that day. I think he summed it up perfectly: super-heroes are often about the fantasy of good mopping up evil, but reality is invariably uglier and messier. I think it’s natural to yearn for a world where good routinely trounces on evil, but things are rarely that nice and neat.
Oh, and I probably did a disservice to PAD’s aforementioned post-9/11 column with my clumsy summary. But that’s because, y’know, he’s PAD and I’m not.
Sorry, Mr. David.
Mr. David, I do not support this president and have never voted for him; our politics, or at least our voting habits, are probably pretty similar. But your post is ludicrous. The “tough talk” you keep referencing is talk that Bush would have rather avoided. Shouldn’t that have entered your mind before you sat down to criticize him for it?
Oh, and here’s another article about how this hurts, not helps, Bush:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Bin_Laden.html
And what the hëll, here’s another:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060301bush,1,2109857.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Well, you can imagine it, but there’s not a shred of anything to hang that on. I mean, I can imagine that you and other Bushies won’t bend over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt but, hey…doesn’t mean much.
Ah. I see. I’m a Bushie. Ok. Well, you either haven’t paid much attention to what I’ve said–and I have no reason to expect that you would want to, nor do I expect it–or you just assume that anyone who doesn’t just accept your official explanation must be doing it out of unthinking loyalty.
I mean, wow, look at my statement: “In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism.” You’re telling me you seriously don’t believe that to be the case? I have no problem stating that there are people so blindly devoted to Bush that virtually anything he does will be rationalized as ok by them. You don’t want to know that there are probably just as many on the opposite side of the crazy train, go ahead. But in a forum where one of the folks who agrees with you would rather Bin Laden go free than risk Republicans get any credit for his capture…kind of hard to believe.
And you are correct that imagining what would have happened in some alternate universe doesn’t mean much. I’ve made the same point myself when reading accounts of what “would have happened” if Gore had won, if Kerry had won, if yadda yadda yadda, and, like a dope, went right ahead and did it myself. My bad.
Your larger point that Bush may turn to fear mongering to boost ratings is a good one for discussion, though it comes uncomfortably close to last week’s crisis du jour wherein the UAE was going to allow nuclear bombs into our ports–ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.
(Credit, btw, to Bill Clinton–and I am certainly willing to give the man credit when he deserves it–for not following the crowd on the port issue but actually raising some good points. Obviously he couldn’t completely cut the legs out from under Hillary and co but his response may indicate a less hysterical period of analysis, all of which will be to the good. I’m still so disgusted with the Arab countries that I’m disinclined to have any more dealings with them than needed but if Dubai is doing enough to earn it I’m willing to entertain potential rewards.)
Your larger point that Bush may turn to fear mongering to boost ratings is a good one for discussion, though it comes uncomfortably close to last week’s crisis du jour wherein the UAE was going to allow nuclear bombs into our ports–ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.
Well, if Bush was at all competent in prosecuting this war on terror, I’d be a lot less contemptuous of this stunt. And make no mistake, this is a stunt.
He’s left the job half done in Afghanistan. The US friendly government is less than stable. Taliban supporters still have real strength in the country (still widespread reports of their killing of school teachers and women who dare to go to school, which is continuing their cultural genocide of the next generation). And there’s a lot of funny business going on in the mountains between them and Pakistan. We’re not even getting to Al Quaeda (and our hamhanded bombings) or bin-Laden.
Freakin’ incompetents. They couldn’t have prosecuted this war in a worse way if they TRIED.
ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.
This Administration has spent just about every day since 9/11 drilling us about how bad terrorists are, and since they’ve been making untrue associations (such as between Saddam and 9/11), and calling other countries out (such as Iran), it is any surprise that there was a backlash to the port deal?
There shouldn’t be.
Plus, I seem to recall a post on your part about how if Carter approves of this deal, then it must be a bad thing. Scaremongering on your part? 😉
I know we’re discussing serious subjects here, but I’ve just got to say that if Bush really were on the hunt for Bin Laden, he’d give Cheney a gun so Cheney could go shoot Bin Laden in the face. The only problem with that is that the news wouldn’t be released to the media until 24-48 hours later. 🙂
By the way Peter, your ‘mission accomplished’ speech in After the Fall was the highlight of the book for me. I picked up a few veiled (and in some cases, not so veiled) references along the way, but that one was a particular favorite of mine.
One word, INCOMPETENCY
For your viewing pleasure George is now going to explain the virtues of the UAE port deal on next weeks’ show…
I’d rather have Gerald Ford teach nuclear physics to a group 8-year olds before letting them loose to run a restarted 3-mile island…
“Anyone but a fool in ’08”
Plus, I seem to recall a post on your part about how if Carter approves of this deal, then it must be a bad thing. Scaremongering on your part? 😉
I’m not sure it IS a good idea, though the fact that Saudi Arabia and apparently every other country on Earth including Pinkus East and Left Fenwick own ports somewhat brings into question the sudden urgency of the issue. But Carter is such a creep…Anyway, I was joking, of course. One should never base one’s opinions on what someone else thinks, especially someone you hold in low regard.
At any rate, I’m surprised to read articles that now claim the deal will ultimately go through. I thought it was as dead as could be. I wonder if they are being told something the rest of us aren’t. (It occurred to me that this would have been a hëll of a sting operation–not that I think for a moment that this was the case).
At the risk of my spouse being flamed… I’ll admit he did vote for Bush, twice. And after I brought him up to date over the UAE port deal, even he vehemently disagreed. I find he’s been more and more disillusioned with our president as time goes by.
That speaks alot to me, watching a Bush fan turn disgusted… moreso than listening to anti-Bush folk from the beginning. To me, withdrawal of support says it all. The man is evil.
Perhaps someone here can help me with this. I remember on September 11, 2001 we were wondering who was responsible for the attacks. I remember that no one came forth immediately and took responsibility for them, which was … odd to say the least. I remember that we were told that it was most likely al Qaeda and that Osama bin Laden could have orchestrated it although there were a number of other possibilities.
I remember the chase for bin Laden for questioning and the attack on Iraq since it was believed that he was connected in some fashion.
Please take this next question as the sincere query that I mean it to be: when and how did we find out that bin Laden was definitively behind the attacks? I realize that it is possible that I missed it. I am not constantly watching the news and I do miss things.
Can anyone point me to a news article or something where we got the evidence, a confession, or something?
Thank you.
I’m one to stick by CNN and MSNBC constantly during devastating news. I remember the confusion at first and like you I remember hearing finally we believed Osama was responsible. But I can’t recall how we got from point A to point B either.
I think during those days we were so overloaded with information, some of it just became assumed fact and we’re not really sure how or why we “know” certain things.
I remember Bill Clinton being quoted that he knew it was Bin Laden as soon as the Towers were hit so I guess it was pretty well known in government circles that only Al Queda was likely capable of this kind of thing.
At any rate, a tape was captured in November of 2001 that had Bin Laden talking about the strike. Although an earlier tape by Bin laden denied responsibility, later tapes took credit.
It could be argued that Bin Laden had little to do with anything but the overall plan. How much of a tactical planner he is, as opposed to just being a money man/figurehead is open to debate. There may be better targets from a logical point of view–Zarquawi would almost certainly be a more desirable target to get in terms of saving lives–but there’s no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.
To celebrate the arrival of Bush, Pakistani President Musharaff blasted 45 of his countrymen in an American style ‘from the air’ attack. Included in the dead were women and children, but the Pakistani spokesmen said they were all foreigners.
Now this doesn’t make for Pakistani tourism…
He may look, but he will never capture him. He promised the Bin Laden family that he would never harm Osama.
For great blog, check out “The Mack Attack” by clicking on blue “gmackster”
BTW, did anyone check to see if the reporter who asked Bush about bin Laden was a gay prostitute?
First, no one will *ever* capture Bin Laden alive. I read (and feel free to point to sources contradicting this) that he travels with both bodyguards and relatives who have orders to kill him rather than let him be captured. And unlike Saddam, Bin Laden is a true believer, someone who would martyr himself for his cause rather than hide in a hole and hope for the best.
Second, Bin Laden’s plan was to use 9/11 to provoke a war/conflict between America and the Middle East to show how corrupt America is. And after we waged a war in Afghamistan that had the support of most of the public, we went into Iraq under false pretenses, practicing regime change and empire building for a cause (WMDs) that the President later admitted was wrong — without apology. And if you think this went more Bush’s way (they see how great we are) than Bin Laden’s way (they see how evil we are), has anti-American sentiment gone up or down in the Middle East after Iraq? Why do you think we haven’t found Bin Laden? For all the money and incentives we offer, he is a hero to the people there, the person who inflicted the most damage on America.
Third, I think Bush’s stragegy will backfire for ome simple reason: time. If Bin Laden is killed, it would be a political and moral coup whether or not it was announced. But as time goes on, reporters can ask how Bush’s pledge to find Bin Laden is going. And the longer there are no concrete results, the more it looks like Bush is promising something he can’t deliver.
You’re my choice for next president. What would PAD do?
gmackster, I don’t expect you to pay this the least attention, but in fact the bin Laden family would probably actually cheer if Osama were caught. He became such an embarrassment to the family during his mujaheddin days, they publically cast him out. What’s more, he’s attacked their best customers, and damaged the family’s overseas assets. Unless the head of the family should suddenly renounce his wealth and become a Wahabbist, there is no way Osama will ever be welcomed back into the fold, or even acknowledged before strangers. To do so would involve a massive loss of honor for the bin Laden clan, after all, by the Middle Eastern codes of conduct…
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at March 1, 2006 03:02 PM
Peter, wake me up when they finally catch him. Otherwise it’s all just the same balloon juice we’ve been hearing since September 12th, 2001, and frankly, I’m not even sure the American people believe it any more.
“Any more”? Excuse me?
Posted by Peter David at March 1, 2006 04:54 PM
“I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn’t captured during Bush’s watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.”
That’s true enough. On the other hand, if the Magic Terrorist Fairy showed up and said that I had the choice of bin Laden being captured under Bush’s watch or not at all, I’d opt for the former.
Hear hear.
Be careful how loudly you say “Magic Terrorist Fairy.” That one phrase combines the three top things that scare the uber right-wingers the most…
-Rex Hondo-
Doh… I forgot about the video.
>but there’s no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.
But in whose favour? Ours because we got him? Or theirs because he’s now an official martyr to the cause?
Posted by Rex Hondo at March 2, 2006 06:46 AM
Be careful how loudly you say “Magic Terrorist Fairy.” That one phrase combines the three top things that scare the uber right-wingers the most…
*********************
I’m not uber-right wing nor anti-gay, and yet that concept creeped me out nevertheless — albeit for different reasons. I mean, I know what PAD meant. But when I read that I nevertheless thought, “Aw, crap, is Tinkerbell working for Al Qaeda?”
Posted by The StarWolf at March 2, 2006 08:04 AM
>but there’s no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.
But in whose favour? Ours because we got him? Or theirs because he’s now an official martyr to the cause?
*******************
It’s certainly a debatable point. On the one hand, bin Laden’s death could certainly be a rallying cry for the rank-and-file of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. On the other hand, there’s been a significant effort to hide and protect bin Laden. Killing him would send the message that not one of Al Qaeda’s top leaders is safe.
I think the debate is of limited value, though. Bin Laden is evil, a murderer, an enemy of the U.S., and, for that matter, of the entire civilized world. We need to capture or kill him. It’s that simple. Doing so won’t end the war on terror but it will bring a monster to justice.
Oh, and JamesLynch, regarding bin Laden’s status as a “true believer,” remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves. I think bin Laden’s “true belief” includes a double-standard or two.
Bill Myers said:
“… regarding bin Laden’s status as a “true believer,” remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves.”
That they are. And so are Bush and his ringreaders.
Cowards one and all.
Bill Meyers said:
“… regarding bin Laden’s status as a “true believer,” remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves.”
To which Alan Coil responded:
That they are. And so are Bush and his ringreaders.
Cowards one and all.
————————–
Yes, Bush and company should have jumped in a jeep themselves and blazed a trail across the sand, rather than run the country. He should always be the first responder. When the next hurricane comes, it should be 1) the President with his chainsaw, followed by 2) the director of FEMA, followed by 3) the National Guard, who arrive ahead of the call from 4) the governor calling out the guard, just before 5) the mayor enacts his evacuation plan.
Actually, though, I like the picture it makes. Let’s let the soldiers from all the countries sit at home, while the leaders do battle with each other instead. Just our guy vs. their guy in a steel cage match. Would certainly change the way we elect our representatives, I think.
And now Bush wants to give US nuclear technology to India.
We want to go to war with Iran because they want nuclear technology, yet we are going to give it to India.