He is a proven terrorist, and the one responsible for 9/11. Since we have graciously given him every dime he has asked for, and more...without demanding accountability for millions of dollars 'lost', do you think he could manage to focus on Bin Laden, so we don't get attacked AGAIN?
2007-04-27 06:51:56 · 24 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Harley, is that a good enough reason to let him go?
2007-04-27 06:55:51 · update #1
July 4, 2006 Bush announces he is disbanding the group looking for Bin Laden...he states the reason to be that he doesn;t consider him a threat.
2007-04-27 07:05:27 · update #2
WOW, ruth, that is some convaluted logic there! Bin laden was responsible for 9/11, you don;t think we deserve JUSTICE for that? It's OK to let him go, when you call your war a WAR ON TERROR? You justify going to war and PUTTINGOUR SOLDIERS IN HARM'S WAY because of Bin Laden's actions, but then say 'he isn't the one killing our troops?! SERIOUSLY! HE was the one responsible for CIVILIAN DEATHS (you know, the ones who didn;t sign up and get paid to take the risk) and he is the one responsible for Bush starting a war. It's OK to let him go? Really? You have got to be kidding me...
2007-04-27 07:10:13 · update #3
OMG!!!!!!We didn;t go to the UN when we invaded Iraq, why would we care about it now, especially since we actually have a reason to go into Pakistan! INCREDIBLE! The lunacy of misinformation on here is absolutely astounding...no wonder politicians rely on our lack of memory!
2007-04-27 07:13:26 · update #4
Wouldn't that be nice? What happened to "Dead or Alive"? He promised us that he would find him. And he found Saddam Hussein in a hole in the ground out in the country in Iraq... yet he claims not to know where bin Laden is, and the reason it's taking so long is because it's "hard."
Everything is "hard" with him - being President, finding bin Laden, figuring out this mess in Iraq. If everything's so damn hard, why did he run for President in the first place?
2007-04-27 06:55:08 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Bin Ladin isn't responsible for 911, the hijackers were
he may have been involved but he didn't do the act
the government and media have over-emphasized Bin Ladin's importance (probably because it is easier to identify with a single face than a large shadowy organization)
catching Bin Laden now would make little or no difference on terrorism
besides, Bush needs Bin Ladin to scare the American public
2007-04-27 06:59:57 · answer #2 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
***psst***
There were other, ahem, other individuals/groups involved in 9/11. But otherwise, yes I agree with you whole-heartedly. Maybe he was just giving up on Bin Laden when he said "I don't know where he is. Frankly I don't spend that much time one him."
Also, the government needs Bin Laden as their go to guy. He's like a lucky rabbit they pull out of a hat whenver they want to scare the public into remembering that the terrorists are always waiting to strike. Anytime, anywhere.
2007-04-27 06:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Might it at some point occur to us that there are things going on that are much more serious than Bin Laden?
I wonder sometimes if the Liberals on here (including the independent ones) do realize the real deal and are trying to help by providing a constant smokescreen.
Anyway, Bin Laden is probably dead. But if not, he is definitely not the one killing our troops.
2007-04-27 06:57:37 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Their is a "war" going on in Afghanistan as we speak, doing just that. Looking for Bin Laden. Bush can only do so much...he isn't a miracle worker. He is just a man....like everyone else you know. The armed forces are working on it, and hopefully they will find him soon. The sooner, the better. I want to see him hang. But don't blame Bush. Afghanistan is filled with hiding places. And if you don't know about what we are doing in Afghanistan, blame the media.
2007-04-27 06:55:53 · answer #5 · answered by nottashygirl 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Killing Bin Laden does not necessarily mean that we've won a war or gotten rid of terrorism. Would you rather spend billions to keep the terrorists over there or spend nothing and have them in your backyard wanting to cut your head off? You choose.
2007-04-27 06:59:36 · answer #6 · answered by AmandaHugNKiss 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If you want to go and dig his rotting butt up from under that mountain at Tora Bora then go right ahead. Bin Laden is dead, that's why we haven't seen anything from him in the past 6 years!
2007-04-27 07:31:27 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin A 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bin Laden is probably either blown up or stuck in a cave eating dirt
2007-04-27 06:56:05 · answer #8 · answered by Wade 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It would have been nice if Billy Boy would have taken him when he was offerd to him TWICE.... then perhaps 911 would not of happened. Oh... and how about I give you a picture of someone believed to be living in... syria or any other 3rd world country that lacks the serveylance and information resourses that America offers. Now, this person has a huge network of people that will die to protect him. Go find him... it will be easy... you have a picture of him.
2007-04-27 07:01:28 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Georgie boy and his Nazi fellows ( those who still support that puppet ) were never interested in getting Bin Laden !!!!
2007-04-27 07:22:22 · answer #10 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋