2007-01-26 17:48:31 · 19 answers · asked by David W 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He felt there was no legal ground to hold him.
2007-01-26 17:52:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Probably out of courtesy to the Bush family. Bush's oil company, Arbusto, is business partners with the Bin Laden family. Bush even gave Osama's brother, Salem, the Houston Gulf Airport in Texas as a gesture of friendship. That's probably why Bush hasn't "caught" him after almost seven years, too.
2007-01-27 02:21:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Give it a rest. Everyone knows that is not true, and your lies have just gotten boring.
How do you explain Bush ignoring Clinton’s warning that the greatest threat to American safety was Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden?
How do you explain Bush ignoring the CIA’s ‘Presidential Daily Briefing Memo’ (August 6, 2001) entitled “Bin-Laden determined to attack inside America” and stating that he might use airplanes?
Did 9/11 happen while Clinton was president?
Did Clinton lose in Afghanistan – like Bush?
Did Clinton lose in Iraq – like Bush?
Did Clinton get punked to his face by the leaders of N. Korea, Iran, and Venezuela?
Clinton destroyed Hussein’s WMD manufacturing facilities – under Bush, we still do not control the road to Baghdad’s airport.
Did Clinton kill 3000 American troops while securing Bosnia?
The world respects Clinton and just laughs at Bush.
Why has Al-Qaeda grown stronger during the Bush presidency?
And, why did Bin-Laden release the video just before the 2004 presidential election in order to help Bush win reelection?
2007-01-27 02:19:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Osama claimed the ancient rite of "do over". Since the twin towers didn't come down in '93, and Carter wasn't finished getting his donations. The Democratic National Committee decided to let him go. By the way, what was Sandy "the burglar" Berger stealing from the national archives? Coincidence, i think not.
2007-01-27 01:58:41 · answer #4 · answered by impalersca 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the only proof anyone has is a line taken out of context in one of his speeches and what one official from another country said...
9-11 conspiracy theorists have more evidence than you guys do of this...
does it mean it didn't happen? no... does it mean it did... no...
frankly, I don't buy either conspiracy theory...
but, let's say it did happen the way you say... frankly... no one thought he was that big of a threat at the supposed time of the offer, I think it was well before cole or the embassy bombing... and would you trust what ever country that was... we don't even know for sure they had him...
this question is the conservative version of "why did Bush do 9-11?"... tons of circumstantial evidence that if you want to believe it bad enough... you will...
2007-01-27 02:11:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe for the same reason why did Bush refuse to get him when the Saudi government wanted to turn him over after 9/11.
Edit! Don't want to be spreading propaganda. The Saudi government wanted to hand him over to a third country. Not to the USA. This third party country. If it was okayed the eyes of the world would have been on the trial. He would not have gotten away with 9/11. He would have had to be convicted by people of his own religion. This way he would not have be a martyr to any of his followers. The world would have demanded a conviction!
He would have been tried and excuted.
2007-01-27 01:53:32 · answer #6 · answered by wondermom 6 · 6⤊ 3⤋
This appears to be a very-well spread piece of propaganda, and it's always sounded like nonsense to me -- that Bill Clinton (or anybody so positioned) had the chance to get bin Laden & "let him get away."
I remember that Al Franken had a pretty well-researched rebuttal in his LYING LIARS book. I'll put a link to the excerpt here for you:
2007-01-27 02:09:43 · answer #7 · answered by Tom K 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
its a common disease among libtards and democraps:
lackus of spineus or maybe refered to as yellow on back disorder
or just plain laymen terms weakness!
2007-01-27 02:17:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
same old crack pot question....BinLadin had not reached the status he has now until 9/11...he was bad certainly and caused us pain, but there are a lot of bad guys out there, he had to chase them all equally....your hindsight is glorously 20/20
2007-01-27 01:57:41 · answer #9 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think it was because he didn't have enough evidence against him. If someone knows the whole story on this, without the "right" (or "left", for that matter...) spin, I would like to hear it.
2007-01-27 01:55:07 · answer #10 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bureaucratic fallout
2007-01-27 01:55:31 · answer #11 · answered by one10soldier 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋