Why did Bush give up on Bin Laden and invade Iraq?

Question

We all know that it was Bin Laden that was behind the attack on 9-11. Why do you think Bush, instead of giving everything militarily, diplomatically etc into finding Bin Laden and stamping out al qaida in Afghanistan, decided to give up on it and turn on Iraq? Was it oil? war-mongering? some ego trip he was on? something else?

Please give me your most well thought-out and intelligent answer.

Justin-
I wonder if it had something to do with proving that he could do something his father couldn't do? Some sort of unconscious rivalry with his father?

sfavorite and others-
Former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill says that Bush began plotting to take over Iraq in Jan 2001, months before 9-11. So I think it was something he was looking for an excuse to do.

rock and roll machine -
Where are your sources for your claims that the FBI says that al qaida and Bin Ladan had nothing to do with 9-11?

Seadog-
The US troop levels in Afghanistan have been at about 22000, as compared to the 120000 that are in Iraq. That tells me that Bush is much less committed to capturing Bin Laden and wiping out al qaida from Afghanistan, than he is about "securing Iraq".

Answer 1

The plan was to go into Iraq all along. Wolfowitz, Perle, and the other neo-conmen had the plans written up in the early 1990s. They even ran their plans past the PM of israel to get his kosher seal of approval.

Unfortunately for them, they couldn't convince Clinton that such an invasion was a great idea so they had to cool their heels for eight years until a certain useful idiot showed up.

Bush knew bin Laden was behind 9/11 within the first hour after the attack. Meanwhile, Wormtongue Wolfowitz and his neo-conmen gang are whispering in George's ear "Oh, Iraq, Iraq! This has Iraq written all over it. Let's attack Iraq...", just as they have since George took office.

"The coffee's cold, George. We blame Iraq."
"The toast is burnt, George. We blame Iraq"
"Can't find your stapler, can you George? We blame Iraq."

Well, after a steady diet of this for 9 months, even someone with George Bush's muscular mentality is bound to start believing it. Any lie, if told often enough, becomes truth. By the time 9/11 rolls around, George finally has his excuse and won't Paul Wolfowitz be so darn pleased?

Now that George has his suspect, he sends his intelligence guys out to find links, any links, to Iraq. George has his heart set on launching World War Wolfowitz and nobody better get in his way.

Meanwhile, back in Tora Bora, the one guy still alive who has the strongest culpability for 9/11 is on the run. The US is only a matter of days away from getting him. George is elated. Mission Accomplished! And then the neo-conmen step in...

"Um, George. What about the invasion of Iraq?"
"What do you mean, Paul?"
"If we take down bin Laden now, what excuse will we give the suckers for the invasion?"
"Well, there's the cold coffee thing, and the stapler incident..."
"No, George. Not good enough. They're stupid, but not quite that stupid. We better let our "allies" finish this job."

So, in short, capturing bin Laden would have ended the "war on terror" before it even began. By 2007 the trial would have long been over and Osama bin Laden would be a' moulderin' in his grave. Wormtongue and the other neo-conmen traitors would have lost their best chance for the criminal invasion of Iraq.

The End.

Answer 2

The premise of the question is faulty. We have not given up on finding Bin Laden. The U.S., and other countries, still have soldiers in Afghanistan, we are still working with Pakistan on their northern territories (many think Bin Laden is hiding there) as part of our effort to defeat Al-Qaeda.

I think the reasons for attacking Iraq were well laid out at the U.N. There were 17 resolutions, 12 years of inspections, a defiant dictator, lots of evidence of WMD. An argument can be made against the war in Iraq but it does not mean we have given up on Bin Laden.

I have heard the argument that it "was for oil" often and I remain baffled on why someone would think this. Why would we spend 100s of Billions to "take" something we could have bought at a fraction of the cost? Bush could have made a back door deal like the French did and gotten the oil for less then market rates. War for oil is a flawed argument.
----------------
I did not say that Bush invaded Iraq for 9-11. Bush used the 17 UN resolutions, the 12 years of inspections, etc...(see above). He may have had this as a potential target before 9-11 since Saddam was a problem all during the Clinton administration - there are lots of sources for Bill & Hillary Clinton saying the same things Bush did about Iraq and needing regime change.

Saddam also ran one of the most oppressive regimes since the Nazi's were in power...
http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ?OpenDocument
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html

Answer 3

He didn't give up on bin Laden, I can just about guarantee that. I would be willing to bet that there are black ops right now in the search for him. However, bringing bin Laden to justice really won't do any good.
Sure, I'd like to see him hang as much as the next person. However, when it comes to terrorism, putting all of our resources into finding one man is like chopping off one finger of a monster. No, we need to go straight for the throat.
There are many reasons we went into Iraq, but most of the American people aren't aware of the most important reason: We needed an ally in the Middle East. I think our government is beginning to realize that Saudi Arabia isn't really an ally, but because we've been "friends" with them for so long, they have a lot of advantages.
Invading Iraq was strategically the smartest thing to do. It hasn't been SINCE then, but it was. Think about it: Out of the entire Middle East, there are maybe two countries that are TRUE allies: Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates. I'm not counting Israel. Terrorism THRIVES in the countries that are NOT our allies. So wouldn't it make sense that we try to cut them off?
Iraq was just the most likely choice. That's all. But our government was not planning on it being like stirring a hornets nest. How were they supposed to know?

Answer 4

i think of Bush is refusing to sell the Iraq war and has generally left out the Afganistan marketing campaign. I do think of that they had tried to sell the war, however the regularly occurring media left out each thing and revealed lies and Bush have been given discouraged and stopped. Lies that have been revealed via the media: Iraq is falling in a Civil war. reality: the regularly occurring public of struggling with is happening in 2 or 3 cities with the inhabitants and length of California. basically via fact there's a revolt in l. a. does not propose the finished state has riots. Lie: six hundred,000 died in Iraq via fact the 2nd attack on Iraq reality: The parent is closer to a hundred thirty,000- one hundred fifty,000 and this parent is an estimate of all and sundry that ever died which contains those from vehicle injuries and previous age. Lie: No WMD have been discovered reality: approximately 500 shells have been discovered. even with the actuality that they'd have elderly, they may well be reloaded and have been think to have been destroyed. presently The Bush administration published Saddam's papers on Saddam's progression in making an atomic bomb. Critics mentioned it grew to become into too detailed and to take it off so the administration did. If Saddam grew to become into 10 years far flung from a Nuclear bomb then, he would have been 7 years from an atomic bomb now. Lie: Iraq had no longer something to do with terrorism. reality: Papers seized mentioned that Saddam grew to become into investment terrorist businesses. Lie: Sanctions have been working. reality: Saddam grew to become into getting off the oil for meals scheme. issues no longer mentioned interior the regularly occurring press: That over 500,000 Iraqis would have been experienced as police or squaddies via the top of this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. Fifty p.c. of Iraq would be grew to become over to the democratically elected government of Iraq via the top of this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. Over a million,000 systems have or would be outfitted which contains faculties and hospitals.

Answer 5

Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911 and that has recently been confirmed by the FBI. There is also no evidence that Al Qeuada had anything to do with it. So far, no one has been identified as being responsible. Of the 19 terrorists identified and named as being part of the attacks that day, over half of them have so far been found alive and well around the world. Who's betting that the others will be found with some searching?

911 was Bush's justification for attacking Iraq. Prior to 911, public opinion was low for Bush and there was no support for an invasion of Iraq. Once 911 happened (perfect timing or what?), news networks were saturated with Iraq-related stuff - despite there being no evidence of Iraq's complicity in the attacks - and the US public fell right behind Bush. NATO never agreed to an attack, so Bush had to go it alone, but of course he had public support behind him now. This made it an illegal attack - it was without agreement of NATO.

Bush was NEVER bothered about finding Bin Laden, because he had nothing to do with 911. Don't forget, Bin Laden was a CIA asset and had been funded and trained by the CIA. As had Al Queada. Furthermore, there is quite a lot of evidence that Bin Laden died of illness late in 2001. He was admitted to hospital later that year and was visited by a CIA field agent. This is fact. If Bush was looking that hard, why didn't the CIA agent blow a hole in Bin Laden's head?

It's all about oil and power. The US is trying to control the major oil reserves on the planet to ensure it's own standing in the world.

Answer 6

Interesting fact about Afganistan, people can't win there, its a hellishly poor country with a topography that throws combatants back to the stone age. We would have no technological advantage using tanks and bomb because there are no targets, you don't need a bomb to blow up a hut. and the hut gets rebuilt the next day, An army needs something to attack Afgainstan needs spies and turncoats and special ops. the search for Bin Laden should have been done that way from the beginning. But for Bush, here was all this good hardware and no where to aim it, so he went into Iraq, they had oil and a nasty dictator and Bush had his toys ready to go.
So he did.

Answer 7

Bin Laden and Bush are old family Friends Bush did not want him caught because if he were all Bush's dirty little secrets that Bin Laden knows about the Bush family would be exposed to prevent this Bush started the Iraq war allowing Bin :Laden to escape from Afghanistan

Answer 8

it has to do with national secuity,
After 9/11, i can only surmise, the white house put it as their No/ 1 agenda.
And Iraq under Saddam was rejoicing rather than issuing condolences.
That the emotional part.
The rest i dont understand.

Answer 9

What lies between Afghanistan and Iraq. Check it out on a map and then you will know why we are doing what we are doing.

Same reason we are in S.Korea!

Think about it..who wants Nukes? Who claimed they will not stop their inrichment program. Who is talking to other countries about becoming a nuclear power? Like to Russia and China and NORTH KOREA? Wouldn't that be Iran?

Do you think it is a coincidence that Iran sits inbetween the two countries in the middle east that we have the most of our troops in?

Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer.

The deal is..you can not just go invade one country to secure youself from another country...but we are lucky that the two countries on either side of Iran has many reasons for us to invade them.

Wow..you go through these posts and its amazing how stupid people are in our country...and thats why people like Bush have to give them BS reasons.

Retarded comment-
Yes Bush is a crazy oil hogging war-mongerial that lives in a huge palace bought and payed for by oil while Americans have no freedom, food or money.

Facts
Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Private sector activity is typically small-scale - workshops, farming, and services. President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD has continued to follow the market reform plans of former President RAFSANJANI, with limited progress. Relatively high oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass nearly $60 billion in foreign exchange reserves, but have not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation. The proportion of the economy devoted to the development of weapons of mass destruction remains a contentious issue with leading Western nations.

Where does Iran's money go? Russia, China and N.Korea.
Ask yourselves why..it shouldn't take the president of the US to figure it out but for some reason it does.

If you don't like it go live in the middle east and stop bashing my freedom; people.

I like how someone quoted Vladimir Lenin. "A lie told often enough becomes truth."
This is exactly why the democrats go around making retarded dvds and showing them in theaters and letting you rent them at the movie store. Now they can gain money off the Dee dee Dees and fill their heads with lies..so they can then post about it in places such as Yahoo questions. So many lies that you people are confused and can't even grasp a real theory out of the 50 they put on the dvd. Then you come up and you all have a different opinion on how and why stuff is being done. They have confused all of you that you can go out and confuse the ones that will not get a job stay at home living off other peoples taxes and can't afford the movie in the first place. Now that you are all confused you go out and vote for them..when in reality someone without a job, couldn't graduate highschool and just a step up from being mentally retarded SHOULDN'T BE VOTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Answer 10

ummmmmm...we are still in afghanistan. nothing has changed. if you really believe a billionaire is hiding in a cave somewhere you don't understand what exactly money can buy you. the search would prove more fruitful if we looked on the southern end of the arabian penninsula...