THE WHITE HOUSE
October 28, 2004
Press Secretary McLellan confirmed at 2:30 PM (EST) that Osama bin Laden was killed by a rocket launched from an American jet fighter early this morning.
Asked to confirm rumors that President Bush had personally piloted the airplane involved in the action, Mr. McLellan refused to confirm or deny these rumors.
“No comment” said Mr. McClellan, bobbing his head furiously, winking, grinning, and giving the “thumbs up!” sign with both hands.
Would you like to make a bet on such a gloom and doom outcome? You REALLY think that GW has that kind of power? I’m sorry, GW is a bad president but its not dooms day if he gets re-elected…we’ll muddle through somehow.
I know this is hyperbol at its finest, but still…how can you make such a statement with a straight face? At least put a smiley in next time… 
What exactly are you trying to say here??? 
Best laugh I’ve had all day…
-XT
50-50?! What are you smoking? You think you gonna get a chance at all? Think you gonna get 0.001% chance? HA!
Well there is the flip side of capturing ObL… sheep voters might imagine that taking down ObL means the “War” is over… and since Bush is the War only president why reelect him ? Mission accomplished versus Terror… know let Kerry take care of giving them jobs.
Why should bin Laden’s capture make a difference? It’s not as if Bush is personally going to go in there and find him, and it won’t change Bush’s previous record one bit. There will still be the fibs over Iraq’s arsenal and its capabilities, the monkeying with scientific advisory boards, the whole gay marriage issue, and so on. Why would bin Laden’s capture in October rather than tomorrow make a difference.
I confess, voter logic eludes me.
It matters because bin Laden has an eerirly quite justifiable illusion of grandeur based upon defeating the USSR in Afghanistan, precipitating that superpower’s collapse.
This is the also first military war waged by a modern multinational corporate CEO against several soverign states. If he were to succeed in his goals, what is to prevent other companies lead by malevolent CEOs from doing what he has done?
I don´t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. 
No, I think he has that kind of ineptitude. If Bush gets re-elected, he won’t have the spectre of re-election to restrain him, and he gets to do whatever way-out wacky stuff he wants – one of which could tip this country (or even the planet) over the edge.
Heck, just scroll back up to elucidator’s post about Musharaff being placed at risk by increasing Pakistan’s support for the bin Laden hunt; Pakistan with nukes is not half as scary as Pakistan under civil war with anti-American Islamic terrorists and nukes running willy-nilly, and US forces unable to response because they’re all tied up in Iraq.
And that’s just one example.
Malevolent CEO, played by OBL. Al Qaeda plays the role of modern multinational. The US is obviously the sovereign state.
Now do you get it?
Or did I not get it right?!
Anti-American Islamists with nukes don’t scare me half as much as anti-India Islamists with nukes.
kwc: *We’re frankly pretty fortunate that Pakistan’s illicit nuclear secrets were uncovered, otherwise we would be receiving little more than window-dressing support from the Pakistani military and government. *
I think this is somewhat overstated. Around here in India, there’s been encouraging news for many months about the growing rapprochement between India and Pakistan since the near-standoff over the December 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. The two heads of state have been meeting, the ceasefire is more or less holding, civilian border crossing has been expanded, and the cricket teams are going to play against each other for the first time in years! The proliferation thing was indeed a PR problem for Pakistan, but IMO Musharraf had decided to go with an internationalist stance rather than with Pakistan’s Islamist hard-liners a long time before that.
If the hard-liners do indeed succeed in taking out Musharraf, though, all bets are off, and I’ll probably be looking for a flight home fairrrrrly quickly.
Reports that Osama bin Loser is still alive are based on the evidence of a very small number of highly dubious audio tapes that have proved to be almost impossible to authenticate with any certainty.
Not one video of the preposterous loon has been presented to friendly media outlets, such al Al Jazeera.
For fairly obvious reasons.
It is likely that he became worm food in late 2001 and has been, by now, fully digested and excreted, thus enabling him to fulfil at least one worthwhile act in his worthless life.
The one eyed dwarfish sheikh who ran Afghanistan a few years ago is still alive, but he is probably not worth chasing down by anyone.
All in all, this thread appears to be about nothing much at all.
AOB: *Reports that Osama bin Loser is still alive are based on the evidence of a very small number of highly dubious audio tapes that have proved to be almost impossible to authenticate with any certainty.
[…]
It is likely that he became worm food in late 2001 […]
All in all, this thread appears to be about nothing much at all.
*
Actually, if what you suggest is true, the topic becomes even more significant: namely, if ObL is credibly considered to have been dead for years now, then why on earth are we bothering to launch an intensive and expensive man-hunt for him now?
Why does the hunt continue?
To hunt down various al Quaeda types who are still making a nuisance of themselves in Afghanistan, and thereby assist the interim government gain stability. This will have the benefit of enabling all of the assisting governments make a graceful exit “mission accomplished” ASAP.
I am unable to understand why Osama bin Loser is even mentioned as a relevance in this context, unless everyone in the media is truly dull witted.
Prove it. I remember lots of right-wing tinfoil hat-wearers who were claiming that Clinton would cancel the election. How is your ranting looney claim different from thiers?