<p>It sure as hell hasn't been The C Student From Yale, George "The Dummy" Bush! How does this man continue to get away with gross incompetence & no accountability from The American People? Six days responding to Katrina, lies to launch a war and set Haliburton up in Iraq, Osama on the loose, and a wrecked economy with gasoline exceeding $3.00 per gallon. No wonder his Cabinet think of us as a bunch of dummies that can be manipulated into believing and going along with anything.</p>
<p>From our September issue: It's the fourth anniversary of September 11 -- and Osama bin Laden is still at large.
By Michael Tomasky
Web Exclusive: 09.08.05 </p>
<p>Print Friendly | Email Article </p>
<p>This September 11 will mark the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States. The media will focus on the ceremonies at the former World Trade Center site, the Pentagon, and other cities and towns around the country that will honor the dead. The Bush administration, meanwhile, will do its best to remind Americans that todays George W. Bush -- except for the Watergate-era Richard Nixon, the most unpopular two-term president, at this point in his tenure, since scientific polling began in the 1940s -- is the same man who led the country through tragedy. </p>
<p>In truth, the anniversary should be the occasion for a thoroughgoing discussion of how America has combated terrorism in the last four years. And on that front, even the disaster Bush has created in Iraq takes a back seat to one overwhelming fact: By the time night falls on September 11, Osama bin Laden will have been at large for 1,461 days. </p>
<p>America vanquished world fascism in less time: We obtained Germanys surrender in 1,243 days, Japans in 1,365. Even the third Punic War, in which Carthage was burned to the ground and emptied of citizens who were taken en masse into Roman slavery, lasted around 1,100 days (and troops needed a little longer to get into position back in 149 B.C.). </p>
<hr>
<p>Yes, yes: It can be harder to find one stateless man than to defeat an army whose troop movements can be tracked. And that would be a good excuse -- if the Bush administration had bothered to make capturing bin Laden a priority. </p>
<p>John Kerry cant be accused, alas, of having offered a coherent foreign policy in last years campaign, but he was dead right when he said the administration had outsourced the job of finding the man responsible for the most deadly attacks ever on American soil. As the journalist Peter Bergen wrote in The Atlantic last October, we were closing in on al-Qaeda leadership in December 2001. But the United States decided to leave the crucial two-week battle of Tora Bora chiefly to local Afghan fighters. It was, Bergen wrote, a blunder that allowed many members of al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip away. </p>
<p>And, of course, we know why that battle was left to locals -- and why, relatedly, we never had more than about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2001. (Hows Afghanistan going today? We now have 18,000 troops there, and 2005 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces since the fighting began.) </p>
<p>The Bush administration had already decided, at the very least, to find an excuse to invade Iraq. We know from Richard Clarkes testimony and other sources that administration officials, including Bush himself, started asking the counterterrorism chief to find an Iraqi link to 9-11 from the day following the attacks. On December 11, 2001 -- right around the time bin Laden began his escape, possibly the very day -- Vice President Dick Cheney told FOX News, If I were Saddam Hussein, Id be thinking very carefully about the future, and Id be looking very closely to see what happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan. </p>
<p>Whatever the apologists say, the truth is simple: The administration held back troops from Afghanistan so that it could send 150,000 to Iraq. That, and nothing else, is the reason bin Laden is still at large. </p>
<hr>
<p>But listen closely to the silence: Outside of magazines like this one and a handful of liberal Web sites, the subject is rarely discussed. </p>
<p>Just imagine bin Laden having been at large this long in President Al Gores administration. In fact, its impossible to imagine, because President Gore, under such circumstances, wouldnt have lasted this long. You probably didnt know, until you read this column, the number of days bin Laden has been at large. But I assure you that if Gore had been president, you and every American would have known, because the right would have seen to it that you knew, asking every day, Wheres Osama? If Gore hadnt been impeached, its doubtful hed have survived a re-election campaign, with Americans aghast at how weak and immoral a president had to be to permit those 2,700 deaths to go unavenged this long. </p>
<p>To be sure, the difference is partly a Democratic failure -- theyre afraid of the right-wing noise machine, pure and simple. Thats a failure of nerve, and its an appalling one. </p>
<p>But the moral failure belongs to Bush and his subordinates and their amen chorus of slatternly propagandists and so-called intellectuals, who made great political advantage of 9-11 but spit on the grieving families by pretending that there is no imperative in seeing justice done for their losses. They may be able to control the dialogue, but they cant control the facts -- and the facts condemn them all.</p>
<p>"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anybody Seen Osama Bin Laden Lately?
[/quote]
Yeah, I think he's downstairs playing pingpong with my brother right now.</p>
<p>he's playing with your bro? wait, so who's the creepy guy in a turban peeking thorough my window?</p>
<p>That's me, actually. Hi.</p>
<p>I saw him on the double deuce today. Thank god for campus buses.</p>
<p>George Bush is a joke. He make Americans look stupid and spoiled in the eyes of other nations. I went to Korea over the summer and you would not imagine how many people are just disgusted at Bush. They THINK GEORGE BUSH IS A BIGGER THREAT TO PEACE THAN N. KOREA OR SYRIA OR IRAN! Seriously, when Bill Clinton was in office, how good was our economy and how many countries were dying to become allies with us.
LOOK AROUND THE INTERNET! There is so much evidence George Bush failed our country and lots of fishy things about the bad things dat are happening to our country.</p>
<p>1337noh4k4 brings up an interesting point, and the Bush pundits who will inevitably find this thread should address it:</p>
<p>The problem here is perception. Whether or not Bush is actually doing a good job or not is actually less important on a global scale than how well the rest of the world thinks he's doing. Even if you win the debate that Bush's actions are "just", you'd have to convince the entire world of that before his actions actually produce good results, because of his global perception. The alternative is that Bush is going to have to overhaul the direction of his policy guidance in order to produce positive results.</p>
<p>I don't particularly agree that Clinton's foreign policies were amazing. (He bombed a lot too.) But he wasn't nearly as warlording, domineering, or agressive as Bush. I think this is a problem. Sooner or later one of these nations are going to take it out on us. Will intelligence find out about that? If so, he he going to risk American lives again? If not, what does he think will happen?</p>
<p>"We're gonna git 'em. Line 'em up." Does that sound like the leader of the free & brave speaking? (Compassionate conservative my butt.) Or a terrorist? What does he think the countries are gonna do? Sit there and knit? There has to be something done about this. I don't think this can go on much longer. We still have 3 miserable years left. And I bet it'll be a country we don't expect either. It's always the quiet one you have to watch out for.</p>
<p>And even when he does leave: a $trillion+ debt, millions of lost jobs, a bad conservative economy to reverse, the media willing to support a neoconservative (so I don't even know how conservates can support him, this is like Republicans vs Radical Republicans after Lincoln was assassinated), unconstitutional mixing of church and state, nation valuing religion > science, more convicted felons in gov't posts than any other time in history, cancelled many of the top environmental laws, numerous lies, alienating everyone of our allies (which btw have been historically hard to win back after we ****ed 'em off the first time), blatant disgarding of the Constitution and it's ideals (what president will want to follow after seeing what GWB has gotten away with) including a law taking away rights [Patriot Act], a nation in fear with only more fear gripping from the outside.</p>
<p>Is this what everyone wants to have left to us? Is this really what the US needs? How can we sit by and let this happen? Are we really the vapid, arrogant America that everyone thinks we are? Will Team America always be there to "save the day"? Do you really think the world will be a better place after 2008?</p>
<p>Personally, many of his "tax-cuts" and beneficial laws (No Child Left Behind, privatization of SS) have taken a personal toll on my family. How can people let stuff like this go b/c it isn't them? Well if it doesn't now it will eventually.</p>
<p>"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p>priorities can change bro</p>
<p>Well, if there is one thing I don't like about Bush, it's going to be how poorly he funded the scientific research at NIH.</p>
<p>Since he's come to office, I've been seeing budget cuts and more budget cuts. In fact, my NIH branch over here is currently going through major budgeting issues, and sometime in the near future we have to release (<-- euphenism BTW) over 70 principal investigators. Considering the fact that we have barely over 300 investigators, that's a huge chunk. Not only are we losing the investigators (they're the head of their lab), we're also releasing every single staff scientist, research associate, lab technician, postdoc, etc. who work for those investigators, and this amounts to about 300-500 employees.</p>
<p>Also, I'd like to see more funding for cancer/AIDS research rather than have so much of our budget go towards biodefense.</p>
<p>Let me clarify my previous post.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that NIH funding has been steadily increasing with Bush, we still spend 1.7 billion dollars/year on biodefense</p>
<p>The only program that bests that would be the AIDS program at 2.9 billion/year</p>
<p>However, the current administration has been increasing biodefense funding recently much more than AIDS funding</p>
<p>If Bin Laden makes another attack, its Bush's fault this time! :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01</p>
<p>"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</p>
<p>priorities can change bro
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, priorities can change. It's always a helpful thing when a president can get the public eye off of a terrorist who his own government created, got attacked by, then could not find, using distractions such as Iraq/nonexistent WMD/nonexistent terror threats.</p>
<p>A change of priority is not always a good thing spyder. Keep that in mind.</p>
<p>yeah cause i said it was always a good thing right? dumbass</p>
<p>Yea, Bush sucks.</p>
<p>Bali
Madrid
London
Iraq</p>
<p>what do these places have in common? Since 9/11, each has been hit by Al Qaeda. Oddly, those awful policies of the President have done something right.</p>
<p>And second, there's a poll that shows every president since Carter is preferred to Bush. But you know who still falls below Bush? Kerry. Face it, the Dems had a brilliant chance to win this election, and they ran an awful campaign and failed.</p>
<p>And, as for the slow hurricane response, check this: The federal response for Katrina was faster than for Andrew, Hugo, Francine, Jeanne, and Iniki.</p>
<p>The President gets too much credit, and too much blame. He doesn't run the country by himself. Yet your lack of grasp on the political culture doesn't let you place your criticism where it is due, so you direct it at the guy "in charge" of everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And second, there's a poll that shows every president since Carter is preferred to Bush. But you know who still falls below Bush? Kerry. Face it, the Dems had a brilliant chance to win this election, and they ran an awful campaign and failed.
[/quote]
um, where does Kerry/Dems (or how much people like him) factor into all of this? he isn't and has never been a president and has never had bush's power. and noone has mentioned him at all in this thread. you know why? b/c he has nothing to do with bush starting the war or the horrible response to Katrina. moving on...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, as for the slow hurricane response, check this: The federal response for Katrina was faster than for Andrew, Hugo, Francine, Jeanne, and Iniki.
[/quote]
do you have a source for that? sounds ify. and don't quote me on this b/c i'm not sure, but were there as many people stranded on roof tops and crammed into an arena without necessary supplies for 4 days during those other hurricanes? i don't think so.</p>
<p>I'm not really anti-Bush, because it serves no purpose. But I do get a little worried (after I stop laughing) at things like that new picture on Yahoo News that shows a letter Bush wrote saying, "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" He was passing it on to Condoleezza Rice like a schoolboy in class. I also didn't like the wording of the message. I "think" I "may" - why can't he just be direct and say, "Condy, my bladder is about to burst," or, "Con, #2, urgent."</p>
<p>Hey, I think you guys would get a kick out of this</p>
