While it's true that Bush just let bin Laden walk away free?

Question

it's also true that Reagan, and Dubya's daddy, armed and trained him in the first place.
Somehow, republicans think that's good for America?

Answer 1

This allegation that Reagan and Bush Sr armed and trained bin Laden is one of the most vacuous beliefs of the intellectually bankrupt. This is what happens when you try to make a point through the use of syllogism. The US did support a specific group of anti-Soviet Afghan fighters. This group was a coalition of northern Afghan tribes led by Ahmad Masoud. Although their actual name was United Islamic Front for the Liberation of Aghanistan, they became known colloquially as the Northern Alliance. The War against the Soviets was called a jihad and the fighters, irrespective of their organization, were collectively known as mujahideen (notice the lack of the definite article “the”). But “mujahideen” is not an organization; it merely refers to the body of fighters engaged against an enemy or the very act of joining forces for that purpose. To say that the US supported “the mujahideen” is a gross oversimplification.

Bin Laden and his Arab fighters were largely hated by most Afghans as they were nothing more than roving bands of criminals and cowards. They did as much damage to the Afghan people as the Soviets. The “Northern Alliance” on the other hand did not even permit its forces to mistreat captured Soviet fighters. I’m pretty sure it happened nonetheless but the differences in these two groups of mujahideen warriors is like night and day. The US had no contact with bin Laden or any of the Arab fighters in Afghanistan.

You lot should do your homework before accepting every Chomskyism you find.

Answer 2

They funded Osama alright:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khadamat

Though I note some will deny it Osama was a major figure back then, his family background and personal wealth insured that. He co-founded the MAK which had some 30 American agencies donating them government funds and supplies from America (they also recieved funding from other allied countries though) and which was also closely tied to the Pakistani intelligence (ISI) which was used to channel funds and weaponry from the CIA to mujahadeen fighters. Many of those involved in this organisation later became the founding members of Al Qaeda... in no small part this may have been because the US was instrumental in luring the Soviets into Afghanistan in the first place - the US had every intention of making it a Soviet Vietnam and the released records of the time show this.

Also I'd take Clinton's record of fighting terrorism over Bush's any day of the week - he was actually attempting to capture or kill terrorists rather than invade a country for oil money for starters. Also he didn't wipe his *** with the constitution in order to do so. If Clinton didn't get Osama, at least he tried... Bush has not, he can't afford to get rid of the best scapegoat/bogeyman that he has after all.

Answer 3

Bush didn't let bin Laden "walk away". Clinton, on the other hand, refused to take bin Laden when offered up by the Sudanese.

Clinton ignored a dozen terrorist attacks. Carter spawned the radical Iranian movement. Democrats think that's good for America?

All politicians are goofy, and they all make decisions that can be easily criticized in hindsight.

Answer 4

Clinton gave bin Laden a pass a couple of times. Guess he's just a real likeable guy or something...


To be fair, Reagan & Pres Bush I weren't arming /bin Laden/ or Al Qaeda, but the Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation, the 'mujahadin.' Bin Laden was one of them at the time, but he wasn't the top dog yet, and thier goal at the time wasn't an Islamist Caliphate, just an Afghanistan without Russians.

Also to be fair, bin Laden didn't do that much to provoke Clinton - just the largely unsuccessful WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc...

Answer 5

I wouldn't quite phrase it that way. But it does seem disappointing that after Bin Laden took out 3,000 innocent Americans on Bush's watch that Bush would let Bin Laden slip away during the Afghan war. Whatever the reasons that Bin Laden has not been caught, it certainly hangs like a cloud over Bush.

Answer 6

We armed Bin Ladin because he was fighting the Soviet Union at a time when the threat of Communism was very real,so guess what,the enemy of my enemy is my friend.The reason why Bin Ladin hates us now is simply because of pure jealousy.During the first Gulf War,Bin Ladin offered to help protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam.But the Saudi's turned it down and asked the west for help instead.Our former friend is now our enemy and also think back to 1996 and you will know that Bin Ladin declared war on us first.

Answer 7

Bin Laden walked away from what ? Oh, I see you're one of those who still believes in "THE OFFICIAL STORY"

Answer 8

If your talkin bout the first few days after 9/11, that's been proven to be FALSE!!! As far as arming and traing him and his kind, yes we did, but he was fighting soviets who had invaded Afghanistan and as the old saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows".

Answer 9

What would be good for America if you and your kind would walk south about 3000 miles

Answer 10

Yep