But, golly gee-whiz... we never did catch that Osama fella, dead- or alive, did we?
I feel like we've stepped into this surreal "Where's Waldo" picture... except this time the caption states "Where's Osama".
And today we hear that the Iraqi people feel safer.
But let me ask you this: Do the American people feel safer? Where's Osama?
But Bush doesn't seem to care where Osama is anymore... Instead the Bush Administration blows up children in Afghanistan buy using heavy artillery to attempt to catch one suspected Al Qaeda terrorist.
And then you wonder why people might not trust the United States... The United States military, the best in the world cannot seem to complete it's missions due to poor instructions, poor communications, and poor leadership.
Well, we know where the poor leadership comes from. When the team is losing, fire the manager.
Mr. Bush, what happens when you win the battle, but are losing the war?
Mr. Bush, I still don't feel safer when I fly to another country. I still don't feel safer on my own soil. If anything, you have single-handedly fed on the fears of the American public. You've attempted to pass and have passed laws to infringe on our civil rights. You've spent, and spent, and spent with nothing much to show for it.
Then again... since we seem so fond of conspiracy theories- maybe Bush knows where Osama is. Maybe it's a long term plan for 2004. If Bush looks to lose, then let's whip out the Osama bogey-man to scare people to the polls. Osama hanging over the American public's head like a bad cloud.
But who knows... stranger things have happened... I suspect that even more will happen before anyone really sees what is actually happening.
God Bless America. She's going to need it before this is all over.
I pray that no one looses site of the bigger picture is all of this. The world may spin this way and that way, but like a dancer, if you can focus on one point, the bigger point, you'll get through this with grace.
I couldn't care less about Saddam... He was never scary to me.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Craig Lyndall
This is fair, but relatively inappropriate at this point in my opinion. You can express this opinion with your next vote for President. I won't go so far as to say it doesn't matter whether you agreed with the war at this point or not, but I will say that the FACT is that we did go there. This rehashing of I hate the war bullshit seems unimportant to me. It's been said, nobody is going to forget it. The overwhelming fact is that as far as dealing with the FACT that we went to war in Iraq, the capture of Saddam is a good thing whether YOU ever feared him or not. Getting our troops out of Iraq in the long haul depended on this and future steps that we will hopefully achieve in Iraq.
2 - Tom
Hate Bush folks like you will never give Bush credit for ANYTHING he does. If he does catch Usama, you will still find something to bitch about.
You hate Bush for some reason, I don't know what it is. I guess it's because he is smarter than you and proves everything you believe in to be bunk.
First you thought he caused "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover". But recent economic numbers have disproven those lies.
Now we have a huge victory in Iraq. Not just for us, but for future stability in the whole middle east. You discount that.
I suggest you take your "hate bush" liberalism elsewhere. It is sickening and tranparent.
3 - bhw
I love it when a blogcritic -- whose "job" is to state opinions -- is told his/her comments are inappropriate or that he/she should take his/her opinions elsewhere.
Must be the Amur-cun way.
4 - Jonathan
What I don't like is when people say the "War on terror" in Iraq is over.
Somehow I doubt that, and we'll still see stories of explosions in our newspapers, just the little text boxes will get smaller and smaller.
5 - Craig Lyndall
As a fellow blogcritic it is my job to point out sour grapes and partisan bullshit. As long as you are commenting on the commenters and not the story, let me refocus you. What about today's events are not good?
6 - Ms. Tek
Excuse me? How is that partisan bullshit?
The fact is Osama is still missing. Osama is behind the terrorist attacks in the US. Cathing Saddam is not going to stop terrorism one bit.
Let the Bushites bang their drums, dance in the streets, and claim victory and sour grapes. Then tell them to take it to the next family that sees their son or daughter come home in a body bag next week because of not focusing on the issue.
If you think the post was about the War in Iraq then you are mistaken. That post was actually about the "War on Iraq".
But trust the spin doctors to spin the words in whichever way suits their end purpose.
Where is Osama? Remember... Osama? The one who was the reason why all this hell started in the first place?
Oh, I forgot... we don't care if we get him or not so long as we are "winning".
What are we winning?
As for being told to post somewhere else because people don't like what I say:
Well I'll pay about as much attention to that as I pay attention to the people who like to call me stupid just because I don't agree with them.
Remember... throw personal insults when you have nothing else better to say.
7 - Craig Lyndall
Victoria, we accomplished something today and all you can do is bring up all the same old arguments? You can post whatever you want here, and divert attention to the Osama thing all you want. You are probably right, but if that is your first reaction to the news today, then you are guilty of partisan bullshit.
8 - Ms. Tek
LMAO!!
No, seriously...
L.M.A.O.
..divert attention to the Osama thing...
The Osama thing killed thousands of people. The Osama thing is what is going to kill hundreds more.
That's not partisan bullshit.
That logic backed in some facts.
Perhaps you need to re-read up on what happened on 9-11 and who was the mastermind.
Perhaps you should ask a few of the families of people who died in 9-11 how they feel about the Osama thing and chastise me on who is being partisan later.
9 - Craig Lyndall
None of that has anything to do with the fact that we got Saddam in Iraq. It is a good thing. You are right about Osama. I agree with you. I will not sit by as you present Saddam's capture as a bad thing though. You can disagree with the president all you want, but the fact is that we ARE in Iraq. We have troops there. Capturing Saddam is a good thing given those facts. Nothing you can say about misdirected resources or your hatred for Bush takes that away.
10 - Bill
one of the new talking points for the twisted paranoids like this poster is "where is osama?" they have dropped "where is saddam?" for obvious reasons.
more therapy and more pills, vick.
11 - Ms. Tek
I will not sit by as you present Saddam's capture as a bad thing though.
Interpetation on your part. I never said it was a bad thing. Not once.
What I said, is don't forget what the point of all of this really is. You are the one who is doing your damnest to try to re-spin what I stated there, clearly in black and white.
As far as the saying once "where is Saddam". I never, ever, wondered, nor cared where he was. I have always wanted to know why more wasn't done in Iraq. That is the problem when you start to groupthink and catagorically lump issues and people together. I never once gave a rats ass about Saddam. He never was an immediate threat.
As far as being paranoid about Osama? Personally? Nope... I don't buy into that either. I just know what airlines to fly until someone takes care of the Osama issue.
Blow and blow all you like... We have Saddam. So what? Boy and girls will be dying in the next week and the next.
Where's Osama?
12 - dude
Vic, why are you so negative? It's good that Saddam is captured, finally! And all it took were over 400 dead U.S. soldiers; even more dead Iraqi soldiers; and even more dead innocent men, women and children from our bombings (the count has not be given, for some reason); as well as massive looting; billions of dollars which we don't have; the rest of the world hating us; and a man-child president who seems really damn happy to ride in a military plane. Thank god the war is finally over. Now go back to your homes, people. Don't mind the never-ending bloodshed. Nothing to see here...
13 - Tom Johnson
But Bush doesn't seem to care where Osama is anymore... Instead the Bush Administration blows up children in Afghanistan buy using heavy artillery to attempt to catch one suspected Al Qaeda terrorist.
I love how everything is simplified with the anti-Bush crowd. "one . . . terrorist" - you do realize that when you capture someone you can get information from them on the whereabouts of others, right? And of coure, we really meant to kill children while we were at it.
What I love most is that anti-Bushites will conveniently forget how the media moves on after the big news stops, so it appears to them, conveniently, that nothing is actually going on in Afghanistan. The fact is it's an ongoing thing, small steps at a time. You also conveniently forget that we were told from the outset that this was going to be a long, drawn-out, dangerous, bloody struggle. That victory would not be immediate or even anytime soon. But that's just not good enough. It has to be now, now, NOW for people like you. Nothing ever, ever happens like that. Especially when you're talking about a group like Al Quaida who are known to spread out and hide. Does it surprise me we didn't capture Osama yet? Not at all. It's disappointing, but anyone who actually thought we were going to walk right up to him and slap the cuffs on him was a fool. This is like walking around the backyard with a can of Raid trying to kill all the ants. Sure, you can get a lot in one spray, but they spread out and tracking each and every one of them down is going to be nearly impossible.
And I bet when the next attack on troops in Iraq happens you'll be the first to say how we've failed because even after Saddam's capture we can't stop the pockets of resistance. I urge you to go check out a news site of your choice (if they aren't all run by the government, of course) to see that they are warning us in advance that this is not the end. Please keep this in mind, so we don't have to have this discussion again.
Nothing is ever good enough for the anti-Bushites. We take a major step like we did today but all you can do is point out anything else that has yet to come to fruition. You make fools of yourselves, if you thought about it you'd know that just because we haven't caught Saddam yet doesn't mean we won't. And it doesn't mean that it won't prevent him from staging something else like 9/11. The way you'd have it, Saddam would have been left alone and he'd likely have already struck again - and likely bigger this time. You can't have everything both ways. But of course that undermines your simple arguments. Nothing is ever good for people like you.
14 - Dude
Oh, I can think of a couple of good things...
15 - Jan Eggers
Tough break on all the negative response, Victoria. As a despiser of Bush, I can still see some good in Saddam's capture. Hopefully it will expedite the end of the US involvement in Iraq--the sooner the better (for our troops, for Iraqis and for the world). And he was clearly and evil dictator (although we previously liked him as an ally).
But I can see some bad things, as well. It represents the ouster and probable execution of a leader by a country that is working virtually unilaterally without the clearest of justifications (White House lies, false link of Saddam to 9/11, the UN Inspector fiasco). Who is next?
Another bad thing is just the juxtaposition of this attack on Iraq and Saddam, "one of Bush's three evils," with the alliances that we have with other "evil" dictators and countries. Why have we funded the Turks while they were using our money and weapons to slaughter thousands of Kurds? Isn't this one of the most repeated lines about Saddam--that he used chemical weapons on his own people (Iraqi Kurds)? Why do we support Saudi Arabia (the country from which all but one of the 9/11 highjackers came)?
It's probably too late to rehash all of these inconsistencies--it does seem like Bush will gain political advantage, regardless. As for pulling out Osama in 2004, I wrote a related blog recently--just follow the link for my name. Will he be pulling out the color-coded terror alerts again, too?
16 - Mac Diva
Victoria's points ring true with me.
I just don't think Saddam Hussein's capture will matter much in the long run. Does anyone care that Manuel Noriega, another former U.S. ally, was captured, convicted and imprisoned for some of his crimes, today? Twenty years from now, people will have forgotten Saddam, though the problem of more effective terrorism, both internal and external, will still be with us. The persons involved in 9/11 were not proteges of Saddam Hussein. Their leader is still very much at large.
17 - Natalie Davis
This topic makes me laugh out loud. And not because of MD's position, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Should Saddam stand for his crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But so should Bush. And his capture does not justify the immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq or the lies sold to a gullible American public. Call it partisan bullshit if you will, but people are allowed to hold their own opinions, Craig, whether or not you like it.
18 - Eric Olsen
The sourness here makes me sad - oh well.
19 - Kevin Holtsberry
"Should Saddam stand for his crimes against humanity? Absolutely. But so should Bush."
If you can compare Bush and Saddam without irony you are beyond help. You are further left than any of the Democratic candidates for President. I don't believe a single one of them would make the statement you did. Do they want him to lose? Sure but they would never compare him to Saddam and imply he a war criminal. If you expect to be taken seriously don't make those kind of statements.
20 - Al Barger
Natalie, I wouldn't call it "partisan bullshit" so much as wicked, cold hearted disregard for the suffering of other people that you display. A professed Christian who is supposed to love their neighbor as themselves might try cultivating just a smidgen of empathy for the millions of people who have suffered under Saddam's yolk.
You and Ms. Pitt certainly exhibit great blind hysterical and irrational hatred for President Bush, and no sympathy at all for the suffering of all the people that Hussein has killed and tortured over many long years, or their families living in fear.
You can't stand to be happy for them for even one day. I would have hoped that a descendent of slaves or a member of as many Officially Oppressed Groups as you would have some compassion, some rapport with the feelings of relief in the streets of Baghdad. You are filled with great outrage over the least hint of an American expressing personal disapproval of homosexuality- yet you display not the least bit of concern for real victims, such as survivors of the Hussein's rape rooms.
You don't even begin to have just cause for the seething resentment that you mask as some kind of fake moral outrage against the president. Even if you don't like the way he's going about it, President Bush is obviously TRYING VERY HARD to protect the country from people actually trying to kill us all- including your ungrateful ass.
I don't particularly just love President Bush. I got beef. I didn't vote for him, nor do I plan to again- but he's not Satan.
It is utterly willful dishonesty to equate George Bush, fighter of terrorism and liberator of millions with Saddam Hussein- murderer of a million to two million people. It takes a special choice of rational and moral blindness to equate Bush and Hussein as you wish to insist on.
American forces have unavoidably hurt a relative handful of people in the process of trying to protect America from further unprovoked attacks and working to liberate 50 million Afghans and Iraqis from the yolk of tyranny. Saddam just flat out has murdered a million or more people and visited unspeakable tortures on many others simply in order to hold power- and often times apparently just because he could.
Apparently you would rather have the people of Iraq suffer under the murderous regime of Hussein rather than see President Bush get the least ounce of credit for accomplishing even ONE good thing.
Yes, you have a right to hold whatever opinions you wish- and you even have a right to insist on expressing dishonest positions or even to try to convince yourself of them in order to give your wicked resentments a facade of morality.
And I have a right to say shame on you.
21 - Natalie Davis
"You are further left than any of the Democratic candidates for President. I don't believe a single one of them would make the statement you did."
Well, of course, and I would not support any of them, save Kucinich. Character first, you know. I am most assuredly NOT a Democrat and I do not support the Democratic Party.
This is sickening -- people criticizing others for not being happy enough to suit them. Goodness. You're happy about the news? Good for you. Some of us have other priorities, obviously. Some of us are more concerned with the deaths of innocents and with seeing *all* of the terrorists get justice. Yes, many innocents are dead because of Saddam, but the same is true of Bush. Why is it so wrong to say that?
I am speaking rhetorically here. I have no desire to fight with you folks, but just think about that point for a bit. Why are you trying to silence us or insult/belittle us into silence? We disagree with you and don't share YOUR celebratory mood, so something necessarily is *wrong* with us? We are called *sour*? I can only shake my head in disbelief.
22 - Natalie Davis
OK, I'll give you this: I am happy that your boys did not murder Saddam. Good enough?
23 - bhw
I'm also glad that he was taken alive --the Iraqis wouldn't believe he was dead no matter what, I don't think. Plus he needs to be tried and sentenced for his crimes.
I also think it's a good day for the US soldiers over there who have been fighting/living/dieing in the Iraqi heat since March. And it's a good day for the Iraqi people, at least those who actually think ill of Hussein. [But let's not forget that the Iraqi people and their suffering had nothing to do with why we waged a war in the first place. We were pretty happy to let them suffer for 30 years under this guy.]
Mr. Bush will reap the benefits [via public opinion polls, etc.] of the hard work our military has done. That's just how it goes when you're the president.
24 - bhw
Why are you trying to silence us or insult/belittle us into silence? We disagree with you and don't share YOUR celebratory mood, so something necessarily is *wrong* with us? We are called *sour*? I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Natalie, I don't know why, but I'm *always* amazed at the personal attacks in the blogcritics comments. I see them all the time, yet for some reason, each and every time I'm as surprised as I was the first time.
I guess we should be accustomed to the "love it or leave it" and "love it or shut up about it" attitudes by now. But I just still find them surprising in these comment threads.
25 - Al Barger
You're really reaching with this one:
I guess we should be accustomed to the "love it or leave it" and "love it or shut up about it" attitudes by now.
No one throughout this comment thread has said anything resembling that- least of all the Bush defenders whom you seem to be intending to incriminate.
Judging not some vague general impression of Blogcritics, but this specific column and comments, it appears to me that Natalie and Ms. Pitt have spoken in a maliciously spiteful manner. They're being mean and hateful, and others of us have tried to respond in a calm and respectful, but carefully critical manner.
However, as Dennis Miller would say, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
It seems to me that some of our Blogcritics commentary directly concerns actual public political type issues, while some of it concerns the process of civil discourse itself.
This also is important: How do we discuss public issues without getting unnecessarily personal? When is it, however, necessary and appropriate to address personal issues in these debates? How do we address these issues in a constructive manner without being simply abusive and malicious?
Enquiring minds want to know!