Not Captured Yet

Osama bin Laden, that is. Everyone involved denies reports from ultra-reliable Iran state radio that OBL has been in custody since "a long time ago."

Reports of the capture of Santa Claus in Iraq also plausibily debunked here.

[Tip o' the pixel to Linda at Auterrific.]

Comments

[dj of raleigh]

>(CBS/AP) Iran's state radio, quoting an unnamed sourceTwo local officials who spoke to the AP earlier on condition of anonymity

[dj of raleigh]

An unnamed source told me that the democrats
have planted this story to use in case OBLaden
is found in October, just before the election,
so they can make a conspriacy theory of it
and minimize the damage to the vote.
...a proactive damage control dept.

All the news that unfit to read, printing lies,
with pictures to prove it.

[thoreau]

One plausible and innocuous reason for the source to be unnamed is that this source doesn't want anybody to know that he makes a habit of talking to the press.

[dj of raleigh]

One plausible and innocuous reason for the source to be unnamed is that this source doesn't want anybody to know that he makes a habit of talking to the press.---Posted by thoreau

And such sources are NOT accountable,
not in any way.
Leaks from the government, from both parties,
from the military, from corporations, have become
common place.
Remember the French being smeared before Iraq?
Did they sell nuclear grade timers?
Did they sell airplane parts? Did Germany?
There were reports based on info from anonymous sources.
nor are the reporters responsible,
nor are the papers responsible,
except in the cases when it bursts open
...as per the NY Times problems...
Jayson Blair and a thousand others...
they might be imagined, figured, or worse.
Am I the only one tired of Mr/Mrs Anonymous
making the news?

Anonymous sources should be printed in YELLOW,
as in yellow journalism.

[Karl Rove]

I used to think poster Lazarus Long was
OBL, but now I think it's Jean Bart.

OBL is probably sitting in a wireless cafe in Paris, enjoying an expresso while posting as an athieistic libertarian.

[Linda]

I have a serious, and possibly stupid, question to ask.

Here is a quote from this article, "President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, senior administration and military officials say, as a combination of better intelligence, improving weather and a refocusing of resources away from Iraq has reinvigorated the hunt along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan."

REinvigorating? REfocusing? Did I miss the news flash where he said that in order to go to Iraq, he would need to syphon resources from the hunt for OBL? Or, should have made that leap of logic on my own? If the latter is true, it didn't happen and I'm trying very hard not to think that this guy is a schmuck for making us believe that the hunt for OBL is, and has been, going on full force.

[Ruthless]

Jack must be in the box if he's going to pop out on Karl Rove's carefully chosen day in October.

Also what Linda said big time.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Go eat some crackers, Linda.

[Ruthless]

You can eat crackers in my bed anytime Linda. The wife and I have a king-size.
Douglas Fletcher presumes to know your habits?

[Douglas Fletcher]

No. But eating crackers does have a way of keeping you from talking too much.

[Linda]

"...eating crackers does have a way of keeping you from talking too much."

They keep you from vomiting too.

It's my guess that Douglas likes bush. Things are always a little bit fuzzy when you like bush.

[Chuck]

Santa Claus *was* captured in Iraq, but he was freed by Jesus, Chef, and the boys! Heavens to Betsy, don't you guys watch South Park?

[Eric]

Why would Santa bother with Iraq after seeing the $87 billion gift it received earlier in the year?

[Allen]

In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, denied early Saturday that bin Laden was captured.

It struck me as odd that the U.S. official didn't want to be named. To paraphase: "bin Laden hasn't been captured, but don't tell anyone I said so." I'm not suggesting that there is a cover-up going on, it just seemed, well, odd to me.

As for the Santa Clause thing... that's a cover-up!

[anon]

Eric. It wasn't Iraq who got the $87B gift. It was Halliburton and the like. What Iraq got so far, are bombs and chaos.

[kwais]

Crackers keep you from vomiting?
Things are fuzzy when you like Bush? Is that supposed to be a double entendre?

On more serious issues; I think the people in charge of doing Afganistan and Iraq have been doing a rather splendid job. Given the difficulties of both endeavors.

So maybe it was a well planned event to back off the military side of things in Afganistan, to do some planning, gather intelligence and work towards setting up a government in Afganistan.

[Military Science]

I believe Bush would like to see OBL captured before the election for one very non-political reason.

Republicans, with very few exceptions, do not trust Democrats with foreign policy.

The entire Bush team is most likely very worried that a Democratic president would engage in negotiations with Al Qaeda.

Kerry would offer them reparations, apologies, financial support, military aid, etc... etc... in return for promises of no more attacks on American interests.

This would embolden Al Qaeda and the dozens of other groups like it, and we would be back in the world of terrorism we lived in before the election of Ronald Reagan.

[Gadfly]

Anybody remember the hostages being turned over the same day Reagan took the oath? Or the birthday cake?

[Linda]

"Crackers keep you from vomiting?"

They do when you're pregnant!

Maybe is was a planned event, but that would indicate that the same, or increased, attention has been focused on this. I don't hear them saying that at all. The press release would sound a lot different if they have kept the focus on OBL.

And, believe it or not, I agree that Bush is someone the predominantly Islamic countries would LOVE to have out of office. I think they will do anything to exchange him for a more lenient negotiator, which is why I believe the Iranian radio station staged the OBL announcement. In the process, they have managed to bring to light some really interesting aspects of the hunt, and/or now REhunt, for Bin Laden. I don't think that broadcast was planned by the democrats or the republicans in this country.

Whether Kerry is more lenient, is yet to be seen. It's not just him going in, it's who he takes with him.

[Neocon-Watch]

Remember that if we catch him it is all the fault of the neocons.

http://www.anti-war.com

[rvman]

Yelowd - a couple of reclassifications: Truman, a Democrat, got us into Korea. By the time Eisenhower was elected, it had settled into the stalemate-draw that Eisenhower formalized in July 1953.

Somalia - Bush got us in, Clinton got us Black-Hawk Down and Out. An equal opportunity clusterf***.

Cuba wasn't a war unto itself, it was a piece of the cold war diplomacy. Arguably so were several others, but they were at least "hot" wars.

Vietnam - technically, Eisenhower got us "in". Kennedy continued it and raised the stakes. LBJ fought it, Nixon got us out of it. Again, enough blame to go around.

[Will Spencer]

That's OK, conservatives are used to accepting responsibility.

[joe]

"Kerry would offer them reparations, apologies, financial support, military aid, etc... etc... in return for promises of no more attacks on American interests."

Well, right after he furloughs all murderers, and forces your daughter to marry a Negro.

Booga Booga! Scary liberals! Scary!

Seriously, though, do you want a return to the Reagan era, or do you want no more negotiations with terrorists? Because you can't have both.

[thoreau]

joe- (not to be confused with Joe, who also posts here)

You forgot the part where we convert his daughter to homosexuality so the Negro that she marries is actually a gay woman in San Francisco.

[yelowd]

"Republicans, with very few exceptions, do not trust Democrats with foreign policy ...

Kerry would offer them reparations, apologies, financial support, military aid, etc... etc... in return for promises of no more attacks on American interests."

Ok... Republicans/conservatives always chant this mantra, especially now in the context of the "war on terrorism".

It's utterly ridiculous. The last 100 years has seen tremendously active, aggressive, and somewhat successfuly dems.

Spanish-American War- Republicans. Win. Ushered in American Century.
WWI- Democrats. We won.
WWII- Democrats. We won.
Korea- Republican. A draw or a loss since we're still there and technically still at war.
Cuba/ Commies- Democrat. A win/draw. Missiles left, commies stayed.
Vietnam- Democrats started. Republican ended as a loss.
Cold War- Democrats Started. Republican ended. Win. No true fighting between the two competitors.
Panama/Grenada- Republican. Win. Not really "war".
Gulf War I- Republican. Win. Saddam Pushed back
Somalia- Democrats. loss
Bosnia- Democrats. win/draw
Gulf WarII- Republican. Win
War on Terrorism- ?

In way of actual war time experience, the democrats have it. They have marshalled more troops to greater victories then the republicans have in 100 years.