5.24.2007

My Favorite Head Shaking Moment From The President's Press Conference Today

Q Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?

THE PRESIDENT: Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

When will bush bring any of his administration to justice? I suppose they are hiding like Osama.

Anonymous said...

Has FDR found Hitler yet?

Anonymous said...

Lucky for Osama that he didn’t burn down a catfish restaurant in Wise County or he would be in the lock up before the cows came home.

Pseudonym said...

OMG, I didn't know Bush was looking for Osama. He was last spotted having lunch in McDonals

Anonymous said...

And that is the stupid type of questions that our president must answer from a very stupid press.

Anonymous said...

10:06:

you are the stupid type of person that votes for a stupid president that causes the press to have to ask such stupid questions.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of stupid press, is anybody tired of their tactic of going up to each side after a courtroom trial, and asking them what they thought? You know, 100% of the winners think the right result occurred, and 100% of the losers think there was a "miscarriage of justice", and they are already "planning their appeal". How boringly predictable--and yet our "free press" still insist on doing it. It drives me crazy!

Anonymous said...

and by the way, before the idiotic "cut and run" comments start getting posted, let me point out a very important fact that is probably not known by a lot of people who watch FoxNews:

the one place we know Osama bin Laden is NOT is...

Iraq.

Anonymous said...

hey Anon 10:06, most of the WH press corps (generally VERY deferential to the President and his mouthpiece, Tony Snow) have college degrees. Probably most of them from ivy league schools.

And that's a pretty straightforward question. The only thing that makes it stupid is that the President -- after spending $1 trillion dollars in Iraq -- has not the slightest idea how to answer it.

Anonymous said...

THOSE STUPID REPORTERS!!! WHY WONT' THEY LEAVE HIM ALONE? HE IS TRYIGN TO FIND OSOMA, THATS A LARGE AREA OVER THERE HE HAS A LOT OF PLCAES TO HIDE FROM US. YOU REPORTERS WANT HIM TO STAY LARGE AND TRY TO KILL US!!!!1

I don't understand what is happening in this country when the press won't support the president! WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Anonymous said...

Barry, why is this a "head-shaking moment? You liberals make me sick. Of course the reason we can't find Bin Laden is because he is hiding. If he was in plain site, or annouced his wherabouts, we would have him in custody.

I really don't see why we need a press conference like this? Did anyone think that President Bush and the Army isn't looking for Osama? They are, and that is why we have our soldiers in Iraq and Afghan. "Obviously" he is hiding,probably in a cave or a hole. All libs want to do is cut and run, and leave him where he can plan more attacks, just so you can have the stupid press ask more questions like this!

June FN Cleaver said...

I will have to side with 10:06 on this one. That really was a stupid question that elicited a "you stupid" response.

Anonymous said...

At least this is the easy type question that Bush can answer.
It's tough without Fleischer there to check his clipboard and make sure reporters only ask pre-composed Whitehouse approved questions.

Anonymous said...

"That is a lot of area over there", and that is why the President is "looking in Iraq and Afgan"?????????????????

Osama isn't particularly "hiding" folks. He has been known to be in a northern province of Pakistan for quite some time. He has NEVER been ANYWHERE NEAR Iraq since 9-11, and NO ONE (not even Bush) has ever suggested that he was.

The problem is that the mountain tribes housing Osama as a guest are fiercely independent, and the Pakistani government and army have no control up there; but for our troops to cross over from Afganistan would still be in intrusion on the sovereignty of Pakistan, who is Bushe's "good friend and ally, and who -incidentally - happens to have a nuclear bomb in its arsenal.

So ... Iraq makes a nice diversion to keep the public attention off Osama, and the question was asked to try to get Bush to admit to just all these facts ... which he won't.

wordkyle said...

Some of the comments are jaw-dropping oblivious.

*Osama bin Laden, while a large target, is not the only actor on the Islamic terrorist stage. Nonetheless, efforts continue to find him. Beliefs to the contrary are just stupid.

*Iraq was a central hub for terrorist activity pre-9/11. Al-Qaeda had contact with the Iraqi government pre-9/11, but the President has never suggested that Saddam Hussein (RIP) was involved in that plot. Claims to the contrary are just stupid. However, Saddam Hussein (RIP) did support, train and equip terrorists while he ruled Iraq, making Iraq a valid target in the fight against terrorism.

*The belief that the US presence in Iraq is the cause of terrorism is just stupid. Pretending that 9/11 never happened and returning to that mindset is asking for disaster.

*Following Bill Clinton's example of treating terrorism as a criminal matter rather than a military matter (the reason he refused to take bin Laden when Sudan offered him up) will lead to a series of first strikes by Islamic terrorists against American targets on our home turf. They are not afraid of our criminal justice system. With the Democrat Liberal mindset, say goodbye to Omaha.

Either you believe Islamic terrorism is a tremendous danger to Americans, or you don't. If you don't, then there's no possible point of agreement with those of us who do believe it.

Gleemonex said...

Oh yes, as a "lib," I definitely am ALL ABOUT having Osama bin Laden -- the guy who actually masterminded the 9/11 attacks -- "stay large" and "try to kill us !!!!1". I would much prefer that to, say, actually hunting him and his murderous co-conspirators down. I totally *heart* "leav[ing] him where he can plan more attacks." Other "libs," I'm sure we can all agree on that, right?

wordkyle said...

glee, your sarcasm would be much biting if your president Clinton had not done exactly what you describe.

Gleemonex said...

PDB, August 6, 2001: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

How hard are we looking for him, really? "Afghan," Jesus.

The Devil said...

If we had just sent Dog the Bounty Hunter after him this whole mess would be cleared up and war would not be necessary!

wordkyle said...

Gleemonex: the August 6 PDB was mostly old information that Clinton should have heeded years earlier:

"...Reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US."

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft..."

The only mention of contemporary "suspicious activity consistent with hijackings or other types of attacks" is answered:

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."

The August 6 PDB is simply another piece of trumped-up "evidence" that Bush-haters concoct when the truth interferes with their goals.

For eight years Bill Clinton was so busy chasing booty that he neglected his duty to protect America, culminating in the 9/11 attacks. And if the "pretend 9/11 never happened" Democrats have their way, America will be attacked again. "Those who forget history...."

Anonymous said...

I'm conflicted. Can't decide who's the bigger idiot, Bush or wordkyle. They both continue to amaze with their distorted, foggy and malaproped prose.

wordkyle said...

Dear "conflicted": Sorry there's no way to write in crayon for you. Blogger hasn't developed the technology yet. If possible (sorry for the big words), I'll use a cyber Big Chief tablet next time and match the post to your reading level.

P.S. If you want to use a word like "malaprop," you should really find out what it means first.

Meanwhile, my points about bin Ladin, Clinton's culpability and the irrelevance of the August 6 PDB stand.