I'm just curious.
2007-01-11 08:00:45 · 19 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. The capture or assassination of Osama Bin Laden will not resolve the terrorism problem we have, and therefore it would not change my stance against Bush. The global jihadist movement is larger than one man. Osama Bin Laden is not THE mastermind of worldwide Islamic terror, but merely one of the more vocal and high profile ones. If he is eliminated there are plenty of capable men to take his place. The only way I would support Bush is if he started to fight this war on terror more intelligently by first admitting Iraq is irrelevant to the effort. Secondly, he would have to acknowledge that one has to address the root causes of terrorism before one addresses things militarily. An effort solely dependent on military efforts only wipes away the symptoms of terrorism temporarily, it doesn’t cure the problem.
2007-01-11 08:04:12 · answer #1 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
If Bush himself caught Osama - yes. But, we know that's not going to happen. The only thing Bush might catch is a cold.
If anyone catches Osama, it will be the American troops. But, I still wouldn't support Bush because he sent the troops to the wrong place - Iraq - and has cost us needless American lives.
2007-01-11 08:07:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not really.
To the girl below me, I would support a GOOD Republican president. The only reason I don't support Bush is because he has made several idiotic decisions that have put our men and women in danger, and stepped all over the Constitution while doing so. So no, if Bush became Democratic, I still wouldn't support him because even though he was of my party, he would still be a bad president.
2007-01-11 08:04:54 · answer #3 · answered by Stardust 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Osama (Who is dead trust me) and Saddam were Boogy men created by the West to give The New World Order Brigade a foothold in the middle east. American Oil reserves are getting low you know?
2007-01-13 05:00:54 · answer #4 · answered by Saddam 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the capture of Osama would make that much of a difference in fighting terrorism. His group is essentially a bunch of independently functioning cells around the world. There would be someone to step up and take his place and operations would continue without interruption.
2007-01-11 08:06:19 · answer #5 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Catching Osama is not going to change the fact that he directed the NSA to conduct illegal wiretaps or the fact that he had "free speech zones" created to eliminate free speech in areas that he so chose.
These are examples of two specific violations to the constitutional rights granted under the first and fourth amendments.
Willful violation of the constitution is a violation of his oath of office and is as such, grounds for impeachment.
2007-01-11 08:08:30 · answer #6 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I still wouldn't support his bad decisions, but I would be happy that Osama was finally caught.
2007-01-11 08:05:55 · answer #7 · answered by vertical732 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not so much that I don't support the man, but I don't support most of his policy and actions. If he caught OBL, I would fully support that action and the policy that caught him. But I don't support his policy toward this issue because I feel not nearly enough has been done to catch him.
2007-01-11 08:13:06 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, they wouldn't. They'd start bleating about Osama's rights, and how he had a bad childhood, so we should all feel sorry for him...it's not his fault he's an asshole...
Bush could establish world peace, cure cancer and AIDS, eliminate poverty, balance the budget, put a million dollars (tax free!) in every American's pocket, and the left would STILL *****.
2007-01-11 08:06:45 · answer #9 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, but I think Bush isn't going to catch him.
2007-01-11 08:08:13 · answer #10 · answered by cynical 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋