Radio Silence From Bin Laden

10:11 am EST November 5th, 2005 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments

I’m of the belief that this is not just a hiccup. We’ve taken our eye off the ball, and filthy scum like Bin Laden is primed to take murderous advantage of that.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

9 Responses to “Radio Silence From Bin Laden”

  1. Matt Margolis - Blog » On The Run says:
    November 5, 2005 at 8:11 pm

    [...] ite some time& We got the sucker on the run& But even O Dub has his own America-must-be-losing-the-war-on-terror spin& . Popularity: unranked [...]

  2. Todd B. says:
    November 5, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    Of course we haven’t heard from him lately – the right hasn’t needed to scare the public in to voting for them.

    I predict that, come 2006, Bush and the rest of the Republicans will dust off the ol’ OBL tapes and whip up a fresh batch of fear mongering and gay baiting to scare the bigots and rednecks out to the polls.

  3. Frank_D says:
    November 5, 2005 at 11:11 pm

    So, now, not hearing from him is a bad sign.

    Of course, if he had made a tape, that would have reminded you that Bush hadn’t caught him yet.

    So, no tape = Bad Bush

    “Yes” tape = Bad Bush

    Wait, that can’t be right… ?

  4. buma says:
    November 6, 2005 at 10:11 am

    Of course it can be right. Bush is an unpopular abysmal leader, either way.

  5. Frank_D says:
    November 6, 2005 at 10:11 am

    Thank you, buma. Your incisive analysis has changed my mind.

  6. Mouse says:
    November 6, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    that should be: “…Bush did bring him up recently.

  7. Mouse says:
    November 6, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    So, no tape = Bad Bush

     Yes tape = Bad Bush

    No Frank, it so much simpler than that: as long as Bin Laden is at large, it’s Bad Bush.

    But since you insist on taking it a step further: as long as Bin Laden is at large and his name is used (or not used) selectively and strategically by the Administration, then it’s also Bad Bush.

    Actually, it appears that Bush did bring him recently; a shorter version of this speech:

    “Al Quaeda determined to strike in the U.S.”

    I’d say he’s 4 years too late with that bit of wisdom.

  8. Frank_D says:
    November 6, 2005 at 6:11 pm

    I’m a little unclear Mouse — was that the entire speech? Most politicians have more to say than that when they have the chance.

  9. Ed Drone says:
    November 8, 2005 at 4:11 pm

    Afghanistan/Pakistan area = Bin Laden’s likely hiding place
    Afghanistan/Pakistan area = site of recent earthquake that killed thousands
    Bin Laden quiet = ?

    Note that ? could mean he’s dead, he’s injured, or he is using this as a chance to relocate to a tropical isle and drink fruity rum drinks without the rum (he’s pretty devout in his religion, which bans alcohol).

    Or maybe he forgot to pay the phone bill and can’t fax his latest screed to the media.

    Wherever he is or isn’t, it’s Bush’s fault we don’t have his hide tacked to the wall. Bush took his eye off the ball, so now we’re reduced to opining as to Bin Laden’s location/health/intentions/actions/lack of same.

    I blame Jing George.

    Ed