Are you happy Bush let bin Laden go?

Question

It's unbelievable that, even AFTER 9/11, he just let him walk away...and then later told Americans that he didn't even consider him a priority!!??
Is anyone happy about that?

Answer 1

Is that what he did?

Answer 2

I had a history professor once who said, "people live in the time in which they lived". The meaning, after skimming some responses here is, we shouldn't impose 2006 or post 9/11 2001 thinking on the1996, 1998 or 2000 world.
As a leader of MAK, Bin Laden was a useful tool at the vangaard of a bi-polar world. A failure in Cold War policy was, what to do with these people once the Soviet Union dissolved. We had a "hands off" policy in Afghanistan durring the '90's (So Bush 1 has some culpability too) that empowered fanatrics with guns and minimized moderate Afghans. In hindsight, perhaps John Miller should have assasinated Bin Laden in 1998, when he had the chance, I see no one blaming him.
No, we can't transpose the knowledge of today over the opportunities of the past. Just as we cannot ignore the reality of the Afghan war, which relied heavily on militias led by warlords with variable morals. We didn't let Bin Laden escape fromTora Bora, he exploited the weakness in our militia allies. It's not as if he was some passive observer and not an adversary in this.
Subsequent to this, Bin Laden has been marginalized as an operational authority and remains as a figurehead. Recognizing this, the Bush II administration istrying to respond to the real threats, the Taliban, the insurgents in Iraq and localized sympathisers.
Happy or sad, this is the reality and the question posed implies some sort of omnipitent power that no state has or ever will posess.

Answer 3

First of all... did anyone here know anything about bin laden in the 90's? If you say so you're lieing or know better because back then Bin Laden was a nobody. So if you're going to pin it on Clinton, don't forget that Bush failed to protect America and FAILED to get his man. Bin Laden did 9/11.... Bush has yet to close that case.

Sure, Clinton... well I'm not a fan of him. But blaming it on Clinton just makes you all look like poor cry babies who can't imagine that something could be Bush's fault.

Answer 4

No but Bush didn't let him go!!!!!!

Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden," the Sunday Times of London reported on January 7, 2002. Two of the offers--from the Sudanese government and Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz--have already been reported. A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal.
The Times also reports that "according to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion" shortly after Sept 11 "that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably 'the biggest mistake of my presidency.' "

Answer 5

It's true that he did just let OBL slip away, but you make a very good point that he completely insulted America by actiing like OBL didn't matter after 9/11.
It was sad.

Answer 6

if we put 1/4 of the forces we put in iraq in afghanistan we would have nailed bin laden. bush's priority was hussein, that's why we caught him instead of bin laden. i seriously don't even know how any can defend bush at this point in time, it must be hard coming up for excuses for all his nonsense.

Answer 7

I do not like Bush and his gang, however, I do not believe that he let Bin Laden walk away. Even Bush isn't that stupid!!!! Good Luck!!!!

Answer 8

Guess you were one of our military guys in Afganistan looking for him..,Bush let him go..,was he at his house?What a moronic question..,Bin Laden is hiding out in Pakistan and they wont let us in to get him..,darrrrr,until you know what the hell you are talking about,you should maybe leave the questions to adults,watch your telly tubbies and you will be ok.

Answer 9

I am not happy with anything Bush has done, beyond losing both houses of congress.

Answer 10

I could've sworn it was Clinton that let him go. I've heard the audio tape of a speech given that says the Sudanese offered him to us but they were turned down as there were "no charges" to hold him on. Coulda sworn it was Billy Boy, but you must be smarter than me.

Answer 11

all they can say is "CLINTON DID IT"... they don't care about Osama... clearly... they just want to play the blame game...

3,000 DIED... is there 1 EXCUSE WHY WE SHOULDN'T DEDICATE THE ENTIRE MILITARY TO GO AFTER HIM NO MATTER WHERE HE IS?

oh we "can't go into Pakistan"... yeah... they are only HARBORING THE MAN THAT KILLED 3,000... let's go invade a country for a reason that isn't even VALID instead?

possible WMD or 3,000 DEAD IN NYC?

which is more important?

WHAT EVER CLINTON'S FAILURES WERE, IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE FOR BUSH TO FAIL TOO...