If Osama Bin Ladin attacked the USA on 9/11 then why didn't we go after him instead of Saddam " Insane in Iraq

Question

I mean the President did get on TV on Sept. 11 and accuse Bin Ladin of attacking us then we should have gone after him instead. Is he trying to out-do his father or what? And what happen to the weapons of mass destruction that he said were in Iraq and his own people have found none and said there were NONE? Why has no one had the nerve to ask him at his news conferences these questions? I am an American Veteran and would love to know the answers to these questions.Thank You.

Answer 1

It is simple

Bush is a typical megalomaniac. He abandons logic for internal dialog

He chose attacking Iraq with a small Army to Kill Saddam. Over bringing AlQaida to Justice.

Go Team Bush Go

Answer 2

The Bin Ladens were the only ones allowed to leave the United States, when all other flights were grounded. Also, at one point in his presidency, president bush stated that he," didn't know where he was and he didn't think too much about bin laden." Yet today he claimed, at his conference that we are continuing to look'; that he is interested in bringing him to justice. The worst part is that the press didn't call him on it.

He claims that we are fighting in Iraq so that it will protect the Americans here from terrorism. M y question is who is going to protect the American People from his misguided polices? He has become a domestic terrorist, and we, the people are on our own.

Answer 3

Are you saying that you don't know that we went into Afghanistan, where the extremist Taliban government was hosting bin Laden, and removed them from power and drove them and bin Laden and the al Qaeda forces deep into the hilly wilderness of Afghanistan? And this was done prior to the invasion of Iraq, which was done not only as part of the War on Terror, but also to remove a violent, murderous and unstable regime.

I would suggest you avoid partisan hack websites and read factual history. That way, you wouldn't sound so ill-informed.

Answer 4

We did go after him, he is either dead or in deep hiding--which means he has no freedom.

We couldn't take a chance that Saddam had WMD and do nothing. The best time to attack a country is when they are vulnerable which we certainly were after 9-11. There are more reports of Iraq having WMD than not. Thank goodness that Bush had the courage to do what he did!

Answer 5

This question has been asked and answered ad nauseum. How many closed questions popped up when you typed it in. LOL

Our government made the decision to enforce Clinton's resolutions against Saddam. It was not in direct response to 9-11. But it was in response to the growing world threat of terrorism.

Strategically, it was thought that removing Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq was providing a central location in the Middle East, from which to start building relationships in the ME to help stop the violence in the ME.

For the good of the world. Iraq received the immediate benefits of being freed from a murdering dictator.

Answer 6

We did go after him, but I don't see any point in chasing a dead man, do you? What is the last time you have seen OBL on TV? Why do you think that is?
Of course Liberals want to look tough, and how can you prove you are tough without fighting? By chasing a dead man, that is how. Our soldiers are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as Hezbollah trained jihadists. I know that Libs don't like those kinds of fights, as the opponents tend to shoot at you.
Kindly go hide under your bed and let real men do the fighting and thinking from now on.

Answer 7

Who knows they're both maybe working together, they both must have made a deal that George Bush gets the good name and Bin Ladin gets the bad name but also recieve huge amount of money. Its not a fact but it maybe like that, we dont know?

Answer 8

I appreciate your question however wow has this been asked way too many times. It was never about Osama ever. It was always about Iraq. Myself as a conspiracy theorist thinks that it is a joke that Osama's name even gets brought up. Funny how 9/11 led us directly into Iraq. Hardly any attention was paid to Osama, and the president seems to only care about Osama when his war is getting out of hand and needs more money. The media are a bunch of wimps these days. No matter what side they are on they are wimps. They don't ask the real questions now days like they did back in the day.

Answer 9

We should be asking our active duty soldiers their opinions of these questions when they get back. I am so sick of these war rousing republicans that are so gung ho, while most of them have only read about wars in books, and many don't even know anyone in service. If you are truly pro war than send your kids over to the Iraqi madhouse, or go yourself. Alot of people don't understand that having support for our troops and supporting an occupation that could go on the next 20 years or more are two totally different things.

Answer 10

1, because Osama Bin Ladin doesn't control the second largest oil supply in the world.
2, there was no weapons of mass destruction, they just needed an excuse to invade Iraq.
It was always to do with oil, there were alot of worse dictatorships around the world at the time that no one is particularly bothered about them

Answer 11

We did go after Osama bin Laden - unsuccessfully. We still have a presence in Afghanistan and follow viable leads as to his whereabouts in the region.