The Top News Story of the Year Is…

The Associated Press makes the obvious choice for top story of 2011.

—OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH: He'd been the world's most-wanted terrorist for nearly a decade, ever since a team of his al-Qaida followers carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In May, the long and often-frustrating manhunt ended with a nighttime assault by a helicopter-borne special operations squad on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden was shot dead by one of the raiders, and within hours his body was buried at sea.

The president who they said was in league with terrorists ordered the death of the world's most notorious terrorist -- an achievement the militant Bush administration was never able to attain.

  • D_C_Wilson

    And Foxbots like Hannity are still out there asserting that Bush deserves the real credit for getting bin Laden.

    Maybe if instead of having a dignified press conference to make the announcement, Obama did it by strutting in a flight suit with an exaggerated codpiece, they’d finally give him some credit

  • mikecz
    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Your point?

    • Scopedog

      What in the name of God and Sonny Jesus does this have to do with this post by Bob?

      Geez….enough with the Ron Paul ball-waxing already….

      • villemar

        But herp derp! Paul 2012! Derp!

        • villemar

          If not the apex of absolute pure political perfection Saint Ron Paul, I’d be more than thrilled to vote for Glenn Greenwald, so we can at least finally bring the killers of Osama Bin Laden to Justice!!

    • mrbrink

      That’s a foreign policy of indifference and would see whole countries and states captured by undemocratic multinational corporations.

      Grassroots Democratic uprisings around the world will have very little hope in America in Ron Paul’s foreign policy delusions. He has no use for Democracy in America. What has he done to protect the vote lately?

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unrealistic in a post-Civil War America. It’s unrealistic under 1787 standards. He doesn’t think things through. What’s he going to do? let the markets and war profiteers buy their own armies, maybe picking out the ones with that real good U.S. government training to fight in the inevitable Exxon/Walmart trade wars? What’s he gonna do about the proactive international land grabs from aggressive world powers, as a phony non-interventionist? Let the corporations provide their own security for their for-profit version of “democracy?” because the last thing you want to see while traveling abroad is a fortified U.S. embassy? Ron Paul’s foreign policy means that we’re spending too much on our foreign policy and not enough on privatizing education, healthcare, and retirement security, or repealing food and product safety, labor protections, environmental protections, and civil rights.

      And I’d just love to hear Ron Paul’s version of president Obama’s Cairo speech. Cough.

      Fuck your link.

    • MarshallLucky

      Ron Paul is refreshingly pragmatic about certain specific aspects of foreign policy. And a radical libertarian ideologue about everything else.

      Sorry, not for me thanks.

  • Robert Scalzi

    “an achievement the militant Bush administration was never able to attain.”

    Never willing either… teh BushCo. admin liked having him out there as teh #1 boogieman and would have liked it if he had never been caught.