Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Apologizes For Targeting Bin Laden

President Bush just apologized for vowing to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.” Apparently, Bush thinks vowing to neutralize the architect of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor sends “the wrong signal.” What a freakin’ wuss.

No wonder that bin Laden clown's still sending out messages to his followers -- Hell, he might as well have his own cable channel -- President Bush just surrendered.

First, President Bush refused to use the elite US Tenth Mountain Division at Tora Bora and allowed bin Laden to escape. Then he says, "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." Then he invades Iraq. What the Hell?

Next thing you know, Bush is coming out with this defeatist talk about the war on terror, "I don’t think you can win it," and now, in a move that would shame even the French, he apologized for going after that terrorist and murderer, bin Laden, in the first place.

I thought it was a little goofy to use the term "dead or alive," but I was with him all the way in spirit. I was proud that President Bush moved so swiftly to exact righteous vengeance on al Qaeda... Five years later, our troops are mired down in Iraq, we're looking at a shooting war with Iran, bin Laden is still in Pakistan (kibitzing over the moussaoui verdict, no less), and President Bush says going after him was a mistake.

How the Hell did this Republican surrender-monkey ever get re-elected?

Posted by American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:47 AM
Comments
Comment #151601

AP,

“President Bush just apologized for vowing to get Osama bin Laden ‘dead or alive.’”

Presenting obscure quotes without offering the requisite context does not amount to a good argument. President Bush was speaking about his choice of words, not the spirit of his message.

See: equivocation

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #151605

Disgusting. Total f*cking wuss.
Bush and the Neocons are idiots, crooks, liars, and complete failures as leaders. They won through scaring people, feeding them nothing but lies, and by vote rigging in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) and other states. But, everything they’ve said and done is being exposed, and most people now see them for exactly what they are: the worst presidential administration in American history.
If the Republicans want to save their party, the Constitution of the United States, and and the future of this country, they’d better get about the task of dumping every last one of these Neocons, pronto.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #151607

AP, have you been sniffing the Republic fumes again?

Posted by: gergle at May 26, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #151609

Dr. Politico-
What’s the difference? He made a promise to get Bin Laden, a promise he should have then kept. It was the right thing to say, really, it’s just that Bush’s follow-through sucked canal water.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #151610
Presenting obscure quotes without offering the requisite context…

I thought the context was quite clear: “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.” “I don’t think you can win it [the war on terror].” and it was a mistake to vow to get bin Laden “dead or alive.”

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #151614

Ap,

All Bush’s statement did was to solidify the world’s perception of “Bush the Cowboy”.

Is it 2008 yet?

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #151629

He thinks “Dead or Alive” was misinterpreted in parts of the world? He needs to let Tony talk for him.

AP,
You’ve been dishing out some tough medicine to the Red column lately. Turnabout is fair I guess.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 26, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #151630


He should have apologized for being such a crappy President. Actually, he should have apologized for even thinking about running for President.

Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #151635

George W. Bush has nothing to apologize for. His Followers got the President they deserved.

Posted by: Aldous at May 26, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #151638

I agree with Bush (yeee-ikes) that the way he said these things made many Arabs see us as out to get them, in a sense, helping Al Qeada recruit new members. I also agree Abu Ghraib was a big mistake, but not the biggest or only mistake. If Bush really feels that way, why doesn’t he fire Rumsfeld? Otherwise, I’m not sure I understand. It was the biggest mistake, we’re still paying for it, but not so big he thinks the person in charge should be held responsible?

What irks me is that he’ll concede these things were mistakes, but not that he didn’t go in with enough troops, underestimated the resistance, misread the intelligence, etc. etc. He should just issue a statement about what he’s done that hasn’t been a mistake, that would a much shorter list.

Posted by: Max at May 26, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #151650

AP, this is the kind of hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts I expect often from some on the right. Bush, as you well know, qualified his statement as meaning lacking sophisticated diplomacy or “talk”. He never said nor implied that he apologizes for vowing to go after OBL.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #151651

I remember that after 9/11 there was a feeling of unity throughout the country.Bush,with enormous bravado,made promises to track down the bad guy.I was with him,I was angry.Then,all of a sudden,no one was talking Osama anymore.We were in Iraq.I felt like I had blacked out and awoken having missed some crucial event.Even worse,Bush and almost everyone I talked to justified the occupancy by saying we were after the terrorists that attacked the U.S. Surreal.

Posted by: Theresa at May 26, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #151652

Oh susanna (as sung by Osama bin Laden)
Oh,I come from Talibani,with a AK on my knee,
I used to be a runner,but now George has set me free.
Oh America,oh you just wait and see,
You can bet you havent seen the very last of me.

Posted by: jblym at May 26, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #151655

Maybe he meant to say he was sorry for saying he would go after Bin Laden, since he didn’t. I guess that would make sense.

Posted by: Max at May 26, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #151663
Bush, as you well know, qualified his statement

I know. He’s an equivocator. It’s a sign of fuzzy thinking. God, I miss Ari Fleischer — remember how he used to always come out after Bush spoke and say, “What President Bush really meant was…”

The fact is, five years after 9/11, bin Laden is broadcasting 24/7 — weighing in on the moussaoui verdict, for Christ’s sake! — and Bush is backpedaling.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #151666

Maybe he actually watched the news this week and figured out his and his parties poll numbers are some of the lowest in history.

What’s wrong little cowboy? No more wood to cut? You must have cut down your whole ranch with all the time you took off. Now guess what? You have real issues to deal with because people have actually stopped listening to your rhetoric and are actually figuring out what is really happening to this country. It only took, 9-11, Afganistan, Teri Shivo, Katrina, Health Care, and Social Security to wake them up.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 26, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #151668

David:
“He never said nor implied that he apologizes for vowing to go after OBL.”

Umm… Yes he did. This is what he said:

“Saying “Bring it on.” Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, “Wanted dead or alive,” that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned — I learned from that.”

I can understand apologizing for “Bring it on” but how could the words “Dead or alive” have ever been misinterpreted?
Why didn’t he mean that about someone who killed so many of our people? And why the hell did he take the focus off of Bin Laden and tell us he was no longer concerned about him?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #151671

Adrienne,

One word… Halliburton

Before the war stock price… 7.00

After the war stock price… 70.00

Republicans refusing to acknowledge this…

PRICELESS!

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 26, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #151672

Adrienne, his quoting Dead or alive was an example of how he has learned that more sophisticated diplomatic language is needed by a leader in his position. That is obvious from the context as what he meant. You can reinterpret it anyway you wish, but, that is a Republican trait you may not want to adopt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #151681

Wy didn’t the pres. go after bin laden?Do you expect him to go after his rich arab friends relative with out giving him a head start by saying (dead or alive) before we had troops ready to go get him.We were ready to go to bagdad before 911 .911 was and is just a tool to do and say what ever they wanted because we were pissed and wanted revenge for 3,000 dead americans,and they played us like a fiddle .IS this our tribute to those who died?A war that had nothing to do with sept. 11 making more enimies than friends or maby destroying the constatution and making americans hate eachother because of thier political party. WHAT A SHAME.

Posted by: christian at May 26, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #151682

Bush stopped hunting for ben ladin because he knew he could not catch him. He has continued in the mode he has always taken…never finishes anything. A failure at all he attempts.

Posted by: tinka at May 26, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #151683

David:
“Adrienne, his quoting Dead or alive was an example of how he has learned that more sophisticated diplomatic language is needed by a leader in his position. That is obvious from the context as what he meant. You can reinterpret it anyway you wish, but, that is a Republican trait you may not want to adopt.”

David, the Neocon trait I don’t want to adopt is their chronic LYING. Nobody expected an ounce of sophistication from our president in stating he’d make sure that Bin Laden would be brought to justice, so if that is his meaning here it still doesn’t make a bit of sense. We and the rest of the world expected him to mean “Dead or Alive”, and then go make it happen. It seems to me he’s now just lying again to cover for his own sorry ass, because he’s all talk and no action. By taking the focus off Bin Laden he allowed that monster to become an untouchable hero to the hordes of fundamentalist freaks who follow him, and to this day that bastard is out there taunting us.
“Dead or Alive” is just another “Mission Accomplished”.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #151699

Adreinne, we get it, you don’t like Bush and everyone who voted for him is at best an idiot. Can I make a humble suggestion? You make a good point here and there, but remove the name calling from your posts and you can cut your typing time (and our reading time) in half. Otherwise discriminating readers will simply see your name at the bottom of each post and just skip it altogether (ala Aldous).


Posted by: Craig at May 26, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #151702

David
…”this is the kind of hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts I expect often from some on the right.”

Is that necessary in this discussion?

Why don’t you scroll down and read AP’s entire thread on Phelps below for a textbook example of misrepresentation of facts by the left.

To slam an entire party..everyone..is fundamentally unfair I think

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 26, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #151708

To slam an entire party..everyone..is fundamentally unfair I think

=====

I agree. However i feel that pledging allegiance to a SINGLE party is fundamentally unfair as well, not just to yourself but to all of your brother and sisters within the boarders of the united states.

Unwillingness to switch sides, or stretch outside of your comfort zone is abhorrable. It is our fault as citizens that our elected officals are as crappy as they are.

Posted by: tree hugger at May 26, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #151714

tree hugger

That sword goes both ways,that’s why I am suprised at David.

His mantra usually is “Throw the bums out”

I was under the impression he meant bums on both sides.

Here,he gives the impression that bums are only on one side,which is untrue.

If he really believs that ,then he should move over to the left a bit so I can get him in my cross-hairs better.

Usually when I post in the middle column I shoot up in the air…that’s all you usually have to do…they spook really easily.

With AP,a howitzer is needed…then a steamroller..then he has to be nailed down,then…..

Yesterday’s post by him reminded me of that Groucho line…”who you gonna believe,me or your eyes?

:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 26, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #151720

Craig, since they upset you so much, perhaps it’d be best if you did simply skip over my posts.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #151723

“If he really believs that ,then he should move over to the left a bit so I can get him in my cross-hairs better.”

This kinda reminds me of that “Dead or Alive” lingo our President was using.

Maybe you guys should get together at his ranch for some “Brokeback Mountain” time.

Posted by: vincent vega at May 26, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #151728

Just so we’re clear, no one is ‘upset’; you give yourself and this medium waaaaay too much credit. “Bush is an idiot” posts on a blog is so overused that it couldn’t get a rise out of hot bread.

If you want to know the truth, I’m rather amused by your posts because of the colorful picture they paint of the poster (you) - but, you understand, even the best jokes grate on you after you’ve heard them a hundred times. So go ahead and continue with your tiresome and played anti-conservative rhetoric, you’ll be wasting no one’s time but your own.

Posted by: Craig at May 26, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #151730

“Brokeback Mountain time” Oh sweet Jesus that made me giggle

Posted by: Theresa at May 26, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #151737

Craig:
“So go ahead and continue with your tiresome and played anti-conservative rhetoric, “

I’m not anti-conservative. I’m anti-neocon. And yes, I will go ahead whether you, in your control freakish way, declare that this is tiresome, or not.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #151778

Vincent Vega

Now,now,now Vincent.

The Mightly Eagle is a manly eagle and has many eaglettettes (?) sigh as he flies by….

What is the femine form of an eagle,anyway?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 26, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #151784

Sic. Eagle:

David …”this is the kind of hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts I expect often from some on the right.”

Is that necessary in this discussion?

May not have been necessary in this discussion, but, I felt it was necessary to express myself as we are all want to do here. :-)

Also, note my use of the word “some”. It is important to observe the small four letter words. :-)

I have never used the word ‘bums’. My word is incumbents, and yes, I advocate for voting for challengers to incumbents of both major parties, or, within major parties. See my latest article in the center column. I leave hysterical words like ‘bums’ to others with less accurate ideas or vocabularies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #151802
Adrienne, his quoting Dead or alive was an example of how he has learned that more sophisticated diplomatic language is needed by a leader in his position.

David, that’s the problem. America wants bin Laden “dead or alive.” Bush went completely limp on us to apologize for that, and the rubber-stamp Republicans in Congress failed to follow the Democrats’ lead to stiffen his resolve.

It’s pretty clear at this point that Republicans cannot be trusted to defeat al Qaeda.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #151803

Touche’ SE!

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 26, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #151806

Take what you will from this.
Has it occured to anyone that having Bin Laden “in the wind” has been an extreamly effective club for this administration?
They have used this at every turn to their advantage. This has been a much more valuable policy tool than the feather in the cap of capturing him would make.

Posted by: Ted at May 26, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #151821

First…did everyone forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden by the Sudan and turned the offer down?

Second…just a thought…I would rather be a conservative than a liberal on judgement day

Posted by: Paul at May 26, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #151837

Paul,

Can you actually prove that, or are you just going to take Sean Hannity’s word for it?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

“As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association’s annual luncheon, Clinton said he “pleaded with the Saudis” to accept Sudan’s offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.”

What was that about judgement day?

Posted by: Rocky at May 27, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #151844

I just now clicked on this article because of the shocking title, only to read in the first sentence that you Dims are just being your usual, lying, sack-o-s__t selves. Sometimes I shudder at the thought of sharing the same continent with you. If this nation, our America, does indeed return you to power, it completely earns its fate. I would wash my hands if only I could somehow believe that would cleanse me of you. You’re right that Bush has nothing to apologize for, and he’s at tool for currying favor, but to think that you Clinton apologists have any ground to stand on is beyond preposterous. Sometimes I think the radical Islamists are right about us and that our “men” do indeed deserve to spend the next few centuries kneeling toward Mecca in front of burka-clad women.

Posted by: Erebus at May 27, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #151845

Erebus,

If things are as bad as you say they are, why on earth would you stay here?

Posted by: Rocky at May 27, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #151858

“First…did everyone forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden by the Sudan and turned the offer down?

Second…just a thought…I would rather be a conservative than a liberal on judgement day”

I honestly believe conservatives don’t even know when they’re lying anymore.

just a thought… I’d rather spend eternity in hell than bend a knee to a vengeful, jealous god.

Posted by: Thom Houts at May 27, 2006 7:10 AM
Comment #151859


David

“I leave hysterical words like ‘bums’ to others with less accurate ideas or vocabularies.”

Classic.

You got me to chuckle !

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 27, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #151860

Did Bush ever stop to think that he should have had diplomacy in his actions and his speech, before he ever took office? Just a thought. I could only stomach part of that speech he made the other day. I don’t know who came across more of an idiot Bush or his other conspirator Blair. They both sounded totally stupid and incompetent.

Posted by: Sherri at May 27, 2006 7:33 AM
Comment #151865

Erebus-
Hatred destroys principles. As those who encourage you to that hatred for the sake of power fail at their appointed tasks, people like you are put in the difficult position of despising their own, yet at once hating the alternative candidates anymore. Hell is a place with all the doors open, and nobody walking out.

If your principles are most important to you, you might try relating those principles to people in debate. You might find that those people share your principles. If so, it is possible to deal with them, if you are willing to be flexible. If their compromise fails, you can always suggest things be done your way. If the other person refuses, well at least you tried, and others will see that.

Ultimately, this country’s welfare is bigger than any of us here. Going off and sulking by ourselves because we believe the other side is stupid will ultimately make fools of us all.

The real threat is being hit by terrorist attacks in the homeland, and that’s not a threat we can face by politicizing the issue and getting arrogant about our positions, which may be flawed, deserving of revision and replacement. The practical result must rule the ideological, or else priorities tend to get screwed up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #151894

So far we have been at this war longer than it took to defeat Germany and Japan in ww2. Had Bush been competant the actual perpetrators of 9/11 would be dead or in prison by now. For that matter,If he had been competant 9/11 would never have happend in the first place.Instead he has declared an Owellian war without end and set about making more enemies of the United States with the Iraq invasion etc. Anyone that believes he is competant at this point must logically believe he has put us in this position for political reasons.There is no other explanation.

Posted by: BillS at May 27, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #151942

If I am going to overlook anyones post on here it will be the ones that have the name Craig on the bottom.

Posted by: Zuk at May 27, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #152010

Whether it was for his choice of words or the spirit of his message is irrelevant.

I have struggled valiantly to support this president and his running of the war on terror, even when I thought his words or choices were the height of stupidity. But this is too much.

John Wayne had it right: Never apologize, mister, it’s a sign of weakness.


Posted by: ulysses at May 27, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #152021

you people cry to much what would kerry have done or al gore al gore would still be running his mouth as for kerry hed probally be telling im a hero stories to the press every day of the week and started the draft back up like he said he would do so get your hanky out and wipe away the tears

Posted by: barry at May 27, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #152096

Neocon? Con yes! This administration is unbelievable. They don’t know what the word diplomacy even means. How do you folks like being a second world nation-because that is where this president has put us.

Posted by: Judy at May 28, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #152206

no this isnt a 2ndworld nation if it was it wouldnt be all bushs fault for 8 yrs we had a president in the 93 to 2001 that did nothing did nothing against first trade center attack did nothing on the bombings on our embasseyes and did nothing whent the cole got hit clinton did nothing but be a sell out just like all democrats are

Posted by: barry at May 28, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #152303

Bush got the chance to avenge the Cole and didn’t. I do not back Clinton either-he and old man Bush got us into WTO & NAFTA which will be the demise of our economy as we know it and has been the biggest job robber this country has ever faced. Yes it is a second world nation because there is no way we will ever get out of the debt we are in (at least not in my lifetime). And as long as Bush Jr ignores the people and beckons to CEO America we will just get deeper and deeper into debt while “the haves and the have mores” keep getting tax cuts and making unbelievable profits.

Posted by: Judy at May 28, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #152357
did nothing against first trade center attack

…Except to catch and convict everyone involved.

did nothing on the bombings on our embasseyes and did nothing whent the cole got hit

…Except go after al Qaeda and not get distracted.

BTW, what were Republicans doing at the time… Oh yeah. You were in a salacious tizzy over a little hanky-panky in the oval office. And when you bothered to notice the battle Clinton was waging against al Qaeda, y’all ran around like idiots yelling, “Wag the dog! Wag the dog!” You guys even called terrorism a “phony issue”.

And nothing you guys have done since taking power has changed my view that terrorism is just a political tool for Republicans. You’ve used it to push through everything from irresponsible tax cuts for the rich to banning cheap Canadian medicine.

Please. You Republicans are completely lame and obviously can’t be trusted to defeat al Qaeda. And your leader, the so-called “President” Bush, makes no bones about it. He doesn’t care about bin Laden.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 29, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #152575

clinton was never in war against al qadea only war clinton was doing was the war against him by the way taxs were higher under clinton also im in construction nearly went under when clinton was in office no since hes out of office house are going up the economy sucked for me under clinton it might suck for you right know american pundit but not everyone can be happy can they clinton gave the same tax breaks just like bush has done and no clinton didnt catch the ones that actually bombed the wtc clinton did nothing about terrorism

Posted by: barry at May 30, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #152612

barry,

Could you please diagram that sentence?

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #152631

Americanpundit Bin-laden is still wanted dead or alive.This is a good example of how the left can change a word here and there and come up with results that they like.Shamefull comes to mind in this situation!!

Posted by: lookingout at May 30, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #153219

Posted by: Thom Houts at May 27, 2006 07:10 AM
“I’d rather spend eternity in hell than bend a knee to a vengeful, jealous god.”
With that remark I am sure you will. It has been said, by those that are not sure, “that they would rather die beleiving that there is a God, then to face judgment and and know they had not beleived” I am sorry for you, and with many of the post on this side of the board reflecting such hate, discontent name calling and cursing(which is not necessary to get a point across when one has an intelligent vocabulary)I am sure that you will have plenty of company.

Posted by: bystander at May 31, 2006 11:17 PM
Post a comment