bush had 8 months to get bin laden- clinton had 8 years. who had the better chance of getting him?

Answer 1

I know! It was Slick Willie!!

travismay108...eight months from JANUARY 2001 to SEPTEMBER 2001!!

Answer 2

I AM NOT SURE.

First, you know those muslim guys all wear those rag
things on their heads and dress in those flowing white
sheets and all. Kinda hard to tell them apart from each
other. I don't speak Arabic, Pastoush, or Hindi so I
can't tell what they are saying either. Oh yes, I almost
forgot, did you notice that one mud hut looks surprisingly like the next mud hut? So, it is kind of hard to tell where
you are and where you are going when you set out to
go catch someone.

I think you need to wait 7 years and 4 months and let the other side have an equal opportunity at this fat chance.

Answer 3

the hunt for Bin weighted down started with Clinton and ended with Obama. each and every President's features builds on those that got here until now him. the present spying scandal is a huge case of that. human beings desire to place the blame squarely on Obama, yet he elevated the features Bush put in place.

Answer 4

FACTS FACTS FACTS


according to richard clarke. You Republicans probably don't know who he is. VERY IMPORTANT MAN.

HEMMER: The White House says that before they even arrived at the White House, the previous administration was obsessed with nothing. I want you to look at a picture that we saw last week from NBC News -- an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. They allege, at the time, why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out. This was August of 2000. ( Full story)

CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the administration did, even though at the time, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had arguably not done a great deal to the United States.

If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.

I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal. In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this "little terrorist" [Osama] bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

HEMMER: It seems like this could go for pit for pat, almost a ping-pong match. [I'd like to] show you a couple of images of the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, a few weeks before the election that saw George Bush take the White House. Prior to that, August 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there. If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980's, the White House is now saying go back to 1998, back to the fall of 2000.

CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained. The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. The Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration, prior to 9/11.

President Bush himself said in a book when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus, it was the focus of my team." He is saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this.

Answer 5

Obviously Clinton had the better chance. He was offered bin-ladens head on a platter and turned it down, thereby costing 3,000 American lives. He knew at the time he turned it down that bin-laden was behind the '93 attacks, the Cole and the Kobar towers. The blood of those people is all over Clintons hands. Because of his negligence, idiocy and libido we had 9/11.

Answer 6

the simple fact is... no one was that concerned overall... so no one was going to get him... you could have given Clinton and Bush a gazillion 9-11 free years and they weren't going to do anything...

you wasn't that concerned... I wasn't that concerned... congress wasn't that concerned... your neighbor wasn't that concerned...

everyone thought that terror was something that happened over there and not here... and it wasn't that big of a problem anyway...

we were wrong... but that was our attitudes during both administrations... and that was the real failure...

oh and Bush has had 6 years by the way...

Answer 7

Bush has had more than 5 years to get Osama with more assets in the region than Clinton ever had. What's Bush's excuse for not capturing or killing him?

Answer 8

Killing bin laden will not deconstruct the process by which he was created nor will it eliminate the threat of terrorism imposed on the world at large as long as there are weapons supplies in demand for underground guerilla organizations.

Answer 9

8 months? He's been in office, destroying the world, for 6 years. Where do you get 8 months? He had him cornered in Tora Bora and let him get away.

He said he doesn't even care where he is:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

He knew he was going to attack America, and let him, so he could do all this crap he's been doing. Read his evildoer friends' PNAC plan.

Turn off Fox News for a minute, and go find some real news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Answer 10

Anyone interested in Richard Clarke's book should check out page 234, which shows Clinton to be a liar about the FACTS, FACTS, FACTS... :)

Answer 11

Bush has spent five years, billions of dollars and thousands of american lives, destroyed our reputation around the world, severely restricted civil rights, and still doesn't have him. Period.