It seems that Bush went in all guns blazing to catch Saddam and his accomplices but Osama and his got of scott free for attacking innocent civilians and if he is dead I am sure he was not acting alone so where are his accomplices and please dont say they are in Iraq because that is the last place they would go.
2007-02-07 14:17:34 · 13 answers · asked by molly 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yeah... doesn't make any sense to me either?
if there is one man we should do anything to catch, it should be Osama... worry about everyone else after that...
2007-02-07 14:30:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush went to Iraq because they said there were weapons of mass destruction. None were found by anyone, yet George Bush changed America's goal to find Suddam Hussein, why? Who knows? Oil maybe, but the point is he had a supposed reason. This was proven false so he changed his goals to reflect his capabilities. The real question is why isnt America in North Korea? They are communists with proven Nuclear Weapons. They went into Iraq for less than that. And yet George Bush does nothing.
2007-02-07 14:23:35 · answer #2 · answered by Kurtis A 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Thanks for the link, Capt. Obvious. I liked the part about "Islam is not the enemy. It is not synonymous with terror." But I'm not sure it answers the question.
IMO, Bush went after Saddam because he was fairly sure he could *get* Saddam (and indeed he did). Bin Laden was proving much more difficult, because terrorists, like roaches, have the annoying ability to scurry away and hide places where it's harder to find them. Unfortunately, attacking Iraq was like burning down the entire kitchen, instead of putting out roach traps.
2007-02-07 14:25:38 · answer #3 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Earth to genius: No one let him go. The guy has a 25 million dollar price tag on his head. Everyone and their mom wants to catch him. I doubt that even if the NSA knew his general location that they would tell the general public (or tell the truth to the general public), for fear of having him take off at the first sign of trouble.
2007-02-07 14:24:29 · answer #4 · answered by Jack S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
again I ask you to read the 9/11 commision. specifically this part.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec12.pdf
by the way I guess you dont remember the playing cards of terrorist operatives. and every day the news saying another one of the cards has been gotten rid of. I think all but 2 have been killed if memory serves me. but that doesnt stop terrorism. if you take the time to read above you "should" understand a little better
2007-02-07 14:20:39 · answer #5 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In December 2001, the U.S. had pinned down Osama bin encumbered interior the mountains of Tora Bora, however the Bush administration desperate to no longer deliver extra troops. Osama Bin encumbered became interior protection rigidity attain whilst the Bush administration allowed him to fade into the mountains of Afghanistan somewhat than pursue him with a huge protection rigidity rigidity. i think of it became intentional. They mandatory a bogeyman with the intention to get us right into a conflict with Iraq. shooting Bin-encumbered who've ruined it.
2016-12-17 04:57:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Osama is still living, he will get his. He is probably just laying low until he gets his act together. But rest assured, the US and/or allies will find him. And when someone rises to take his place, he too will be found and dealt with.
2007-02-07 14:23:40 · answer #7 · answered by freedomrings 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cause Saddam is a scapegoat and was easy to find, also Saddam tried to kill Bush Seinor
2007-02-07 14:20:36 · answer #8 · answered by Equinox 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because Saddam's parents didn't invest into halliburton. And Osama didn't have oil.
2007-02-07 14:21:07 · answer #9 · answered by jpferrierjr 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Oh yeah, I'm sure they meant it to work out that way !!! (shaking my head in utter disbelief and disappointment)
2007-02-07 14:24:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋