Yahoo republicans, most too young to vote blame Clinton for not getting Bin Ladden, why hasn't Bush after 6

Question

long drawn out years?

Answer 1

Bush has had several chances at getting Bin Ladden, he decided to avenge Daddy's loss of face with Iraq instead. He'll blame Clinto to the end, while he and Bin Ladden's brothers make big cash out of their corperations that they sit on the same board of. Bin Ladden financed his oil company way back when.......money buys friends doesnt it.

I have recieved emails from a few of the right wingers her via yahoo and they admitted to being 15-16 yrs old. Repeating retoric and propraganda

Answer 2

They can't blame W because that would make them think. They ignore the fact Clinton left Bush a detailed plan on fighting Bin laden, which he promptly ignored. They ignore the fact W didn't listen in the summer of 2001 to the reports that said Bin Laden wanted to use planes. It is much easier to blame Clinton because..well..he's Clinton.

Answer 3

Try to spin this however you like, but no one has offered to hand OBL over to Mr. Bush. Mr. Clinton cannot make that claim, he was offered the man on a silver platter by Sudan. I do not blame Mr. Clinton for terrorism anymore than I blame Mr. Bush, or any other president for that matter, but if you are going to compare the 2 at least try to do it honestly.

Answer 4

Here is the answer,

OBL is holed up in Pakistani tribal regions.

Pakistan is one of our biggest allies in the Middle East...

Pakistan is a sovereign nation that does NOT want U.S. troops conduction operations on their soil.

If Musharraf were to allow it there would be massive civil unrest and he would be put out of power....Are you listening? Is this sinking in? Wipe that smirk of your face an PAY ATTENTION!

We NEED Musharraf in power, the general population of Pakistan does NOT want him to cooperate with the US but he does for the reason that we play mediator for the Kashmir region and not take sides with India.

The US did launch missiles about a half mile into Pakistan at the out set of the war by "accident". The repercussions were enormous. These missiles landed in no-mans-land and yet it shook the very foundations of control Musharraf has...So tell me, how would 10,000 troops combing the Western boarder of Pakistan look? What would that do to Musharraf? So would it be worth it to lose an ally and convert yet another country to full on radicalism??? So people like you stop belly aching? "Where’s Osama, where’s Osama! Waaaah!" So you are for invading sovereign nations after all then....Like Iraq? No? Then your assertions are completely contradictory and make no sense…Hypocritical if you will..

You don't have a freakin clue on how Geo-political affairs work with your lame azz question. So with that in mind, don't you think the rest of your "ideologies” are a little F*ed up too?

So there is your answer, since it doesn’t fit your agenda...as you do with all other facts that don't, I'm sure you'll disregard it.

Typical lib.

Answer 5

Yes, Bush has had six years, but since he is friends with the Bin Laden family, they have quit looking for him.

Answer 6

Oh the agony of it all - it makes me want to bite my lip and shake my finger into the camera and say, "I did not have the guts or the inclination or the will or balls to fight terrorism... I would've, but the poll numbers were confusing..."

Nice way to frame your "question" - so you think the Serial Rapist did everything he could with his 8 years to weaken the threat of terrorism... he did nothing, and that's got a lot to do with why are where we are...

Answer 7

No, Bush SR. started this drama. I say give Jr. a gun and send him to Iraq. It is time we take care of this s**t.

Answer 8

Well, he will blame Clinton for that anyway...if he can't do it, he blames someone...lets see, who will be guilty this week??