Bush has had 5 YEARS to capture Osama bin Laden, but instead he has started a war that was based on a lie and captured a dictator who, although he was brutal, was in no way connected to the 9/11 attacks, the ostensible reason for the so-called "War on Terror".
2006-10-05 04:13:32 · 12 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mister2-15-2: Reagan was the president during the Falklands War.
2006-10-05 04:31:55 · update #1
bush had 5 whats?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? bush had a few months to capture bin laden. under clinton we had caught bin laden and clinton told them to release him.
please for the love of god get your facts straight
2006-10-05 04:15:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Bush junta clings to every straw they can find in order to deflect guilt from themselves. The lackluster attempt to capture the person who is supposedly to blame for the 9/11 attacks, suggests that there is more to the story of 9/11 than previously thought. If I'd be president and my country would have been attacked, not would i have reacted immediately and not spent another seven (7) minutes trying to read, but it would have been my most holy task to get the guy who killed 3000 of my fellow countrymen. But that only in the case i would care about those 3000 dead.
The nonchalance the Bush junta displays in the neglect of doing their duty and finding the perpetrators is yet another hint that they had both of their hands in the attacks.
2006-10-05 04:48:32 · answer #2 · answered by The answer man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To cover their own failings. If Clinton Ahministration had Bin in sight of armed pilot-less air craft he would be history. Compare Clinton's handling of Falkland War with Bush war on government tresury. The Keystone cops could have executed better plan. Not saying it's solders falt except those in intelligence.
2006-10-05 04:30:04 · answer #3 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because little girl, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton would have kept his pants zipped and taken Bin Laden when he was handed to us on at least 2 different occasions.
Bush started a war in Iraq that was based on terrorism. Saddam is a terrorist. Boy, you need to get your facts straight lady!
2006-10-05 04:17:45 · answer #4 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
well...Bush was in office for 9 months when 911 occurred. Plenty of time for OBL to formulate a escape plan.
Clinton sat on his hands for 8 years. Had him in bomb sights literally and did nothing
OBL lives life on the run...if you want to call it living. He never knows who is a informant or assassin or if that if that high flying glint in the sky will be the one that kills him.
Under Clinton he could have marched single file across 5 th ave and he wouldnt have done anything but say wait for the Walk sign.
2006-10-05 04:20:21 · answer #5 · answered by smitty031 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's NOT about a "war on terror", "fighting for freedoms", or "Osama Bin Laden". It's REALLY all about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-10-05 06:18:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because bin Laden wasn't hiding when Clinton was in office. There were many times Clinton had the opportunity to kill or capture bin Laden, but didn't take them because he feared public disapproval for bombing somewhere.
2006-10-05 04:15:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
It is always amusing to see how questions like this draws out rednecked responses from republicans, who are mindless apologists for one of the worst US presidents in history. "We're going to smoke him out" (OBL), said Bush. But first Rummy figures we should pulverize Iraq, and secure their oil for our SUV's, in the name of "war on terror". Dick agrees with Rummy, and figures we got to get all those WMD's - so I'm going to do what they say. "What was that....do we have a plan for Iraq after we occupy it?" Hell no, we're Republicans, we don't plan stuff. Planning is some kind of homo-pinko-commy thing aint it?" Can you imagine Anne Coulter for president? Hello Armageddon!
2006-10-05 04:53:22 · answer #8 · answered by D M 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ostensible????...wow...did that "big" word hurt your brain????....if only...president "prisprism" had done his job and taken osama with all[10] the chances he had.......based on lies??? what lies>>>oh you mean the same lies the Dem's HARPED on long before bush became prez???? those lies??? and so "the Iraq liberation act" that president priaprism singed into law...was a lie too???? hmmmmm
2006-10-05 04:20:02 · answer #9 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The same reason Dems harp about Bush's failures.
2006-10-05 04:15:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋