Is it because they can never take the chance of putting him on trial.
He could tell us who else is complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Saddam was never a problem, he knew nothing about it so we can use him as a scapegoat.. Right???
2006-10-30 07:12:20 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That would give them a reason to LEAVE Iraq.
Can't have that.
2006-10-30 07:32:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They've been looking for him, but in reality he's in hiding, deep under cover. It's his operational lieutenants that matter more. They are the ones directing operations, and they are the ones getting killed. It damages his whole organization.
I keep fearing that people will think that once we nab bin Laden, then we can go home. In the overall scheme of things, he's just one target of many, not the main or primary target.
Does your weird take mean that you think Osama will say Bush and Cheney were in on 9/11 or something? Good grief!
2006-10-30 15:25:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
What makes you think that the government has quit looking for him, as with any criminal you might think they have quit looking, but don't believe it cause one day you will find out that they don't NEVER quit regardless of how long it takes. Your Government like all others, have to have secrets or you wouldn't be able to run your country. It might take 50 years but if it takes that long so what "THEY WILL GET THERE MAN"
2006-10-30 15:39:46 · answer #3 · answered by obac777 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bin Laden is in cahoots with DUHbya, both ruthless oil men only concerned with $$$$.
http://www.foxlies.com/Images/bush_bin_laden_cement_deal1.jpg
2006-10-30 15:23:13 · answer #4 · answered by Dr.Feelgood 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even if you were right(which is ridiculous to even think that), they could always find your friend Osama, and kill him on the spot. That would boost the rating of the current administration. But they don't do it, why? Must be that it isn't that simple.
2006-10-30 15:47:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ok, I will bring some sanity to your question. They are
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-30T190131Z_01_ISL72506_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-STRIKE.xml&src=rss
2006-10-30 15:21:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WRONG. He can implicte anyone he wants. It would just be lies.
2006-10-30 15:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because he and wubba are business partners
2006-10-30 15:17:40 · answer #8 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋