Who Hijacked Our Country

Friday, March 18, 2005

Where is Osama bin Laden? Who?!?!?

American and Pakistani officials have vowed to keep looking for Osama bin Laden, but they acknowledged the trail was cold. The Pakistani president said they had a dragnet surrounding the area where they thought he was hiding (about 10 months ago), but they’ve since lost track of him. White House spokesman Scott McCllellan had no new information but confirmed that bin Laden “remains a high priority.”

McClellan also made the earthshaking observation that bin Laden “is someone who has been on the run.” Whoa!! Stop the presses!!

U.S. officials, while admitting that the trail has gone cold, are also playing down bin Laden’s importance. They’re saying he’s more like a non-executive chairman of the board, rather than a CEO. Well, maybe. But then again, if you’re unable to solve a problem, the easiest way to save face is to say “oh, that didn’t really matter anyway. No biggie.”

In a related story, the Homeland Security Department has been going over some possible scenarios for future terrorist attacks. Possibilities include:

An exploding liquid chlorine tank, killing 17,500 people and injuring more than 100,000;

Spreading pneumonic plague in the bathrooms of an airport, sports arena and train station, killing 2,500 and sickening 8,000 worldwide;

A prolonged anthrax attack, infecting 350,000 and killing over 13,000;

A nuclear bomb (no estimate of casualties).

With these cheerful possibilities, and our inability to capture bin Laden, do you think it’s more important for our troops to be:

a) still quagmired in Iraq after two years; or

b) stationed here in America, protecting us against future 9/11 attacks?


Anonymous Kevin said...

Well... it's obviously too late to choose c) stay focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan until Osama is captured before venturing into another war under false pretenses.

It's interesting that McCllellan would characterize bin Laden as a "high priority" since his boss is on record as claiming that bin Laden isn't a high priority. Of course that was after he was on recording as claiming that bin Laden was our top priority... and before he went back on the record as claiming that bin Laden is once again a high priority.

Funny how bin Laden's priority status rose and fell in conjunction with the whole NeoCon push to invade Iraq.

March 18, 2005 at 7:21 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Yup, c) would have been the best choice. I guess since we couldn't capture the mastermind of 9/11, the next best thing was to attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

March 18, 2005 at 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq is part of the war on terrorism -as will be Syria and Iran. Get used to it losers - you and your childrens' children will be fighting this battle, one way or another.

March 19, 2005 at 10:39 PM  
Blogger Binary Blonde said...

Whichever one is chosen, the current administration is just chomping at the bit to come up with more and more reasons on why we should be in a constant state of paranoia.

Better to control you with, my dears..

March 19, 2005 at 11:53 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Thanks, Chandra.

Hey, Anonymous, since you're so gung ho about all these wars, are you planning to join our children and children's children on the front lines? Or are you content to just sit there at your keyboard and urge everyone else to go and fight?

March 20, 2005 at 12:10 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home