Seriously, it's been six years since he alleged that he was going to Iraq and surrounding areas to hunt down those responsible for the WTC attacks, among others.
In six years, that's changed from 'finding Osama' to 'finding Saddam' to 'liberating Iraq' all in the name of the war on terror. What's going on?
What am I missing? I'm open to whatever anyone else has to say about the subject because if I am missing some of the fundamentals, I'd like to know what they are.
2007-07-19 08:03:46 · 15 answers · asked by Faith 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I asked this question because I distinctly remember Bush saying he was going over there to FIND OSAMA; after not find Osama after two years, he said he was going to GET SADDAM; then, after finding Saddam, he said our troops needed to stay to liberate Iraq.
My point is that it seems that Bush has lied over and over again and his motives have changed just as much as his underwear and not very many people seem to be noticing.
Also, for those that are going on about Clinton and the fact that he should have taken care of this...he did try to find Osama...just do the research, and you'll also find that the elder Bush was the first to drop the ball on this one...not Clinton.
Also, Clinton and Bush don't even belong in the same sentence. It's an oxymoron to put them in the same atmosphere. Clinton, despite his infidelity to Hillary, was still-- hands down-- a PRESIDENT with regard to taking care of business. Bush can't even scratch the surface of that.
2007-07-19 09:46:49 · update #1
This is the same thing I am asking as well as almost everyone I know. Even the die hard republicans I know are asking this.
In my option, avenging daddy's past error's and tying up some oil futures were more important than taking care of the terrorists that attacked US soil.
2007-07-19 08:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by Devin's mom 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He was asked this several times, and actually commented that he wasn't all that concerned about Osama's whereabouts.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/
and most famously:
George W. Bush on Osama bin Laden, March 13, 2002: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you ... And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure ... I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
________
Osama is far too useful as a bogeyman for Bush to capture him now. When eventually they decide to pick him up (from where-ever they KNOW he is --it will be a political move, similar to the capture of Saddam.
2007-07-19 08:10:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well I am sure Bush is asked "Where's Osama?" a lot, we are not around Bush so it's quite hard to say that he is not asked where Osama is...
I am sure Osama is either hiding like a rat or he's dead.
I get the feeling right when it is time for Bush's term to be up, Osama will be captured. You know how that goes. Just when something major comes up, something major happens at the same time.
2007-07-19 08:16:06 · answer #3 · answered by Soda 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Here are a couple of quotes that Bush has said on Bin Laden.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
2007-07-19 09:12:41 · answer #4 · answered by Angela F 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's in Pakistan now. And from what I heard, the US is strictly FORBIDDEN from invading that country to go and hunt him down.
But not to worry. That country's on the verge of an internal struggle. And what's left will be hand-delivered to the Taliban--including the nuclear technology Bush gave to Musharraf.
2007-07-19 09:37:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It just shows how poor our intelligence is. Remember he was an average student in college. When he leaves the office in two years, he will probably ask the same thing of the next President and then qualify it by saying that he left with some really good intelligence. Um, didn't Bill Clinton say the same thing?
2007-07-19 08:12:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
traditionally presidents maximum useful adjust to by way of way of on greater or less 25% of their marketing campaign ensures. often, they want to do all of them, subsequently they promise...and then they arrive across out that acquiring concerns carried out in Washington is a lot like breeding elephants.... It takes problem with a outstanding deal of roaring and screaming. It takes problem at an exact degree. It takes 2 years to get effect. i'm particular lots of them propose good, in spite of the undeniable fact that no president can in simple terms walk in and perform a little concern they desire, regardless of ways good meaning. And Obama isn't any different. I desire he can do between the fundamental concerns he ensures, in spite of the undeniable fact that when gazing at previous presidents, each and each Democrat and Republican, I in simple terms incredibly do no longer assume it.
2016-10-09 02:11:40 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does Osama really exist? I'm surprised Bush hasn't been accused of making him up. He's being accused of every other problem in the world today.
2007-07-20 04:37:29 · answer #8 · answered by lilith663 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The hunt is still on, but you cant send an entire army to look for a man that Bill Clinton should have taken out when he had the chance, instead of leaving the turd on on the desk for the next guy to deal with.
Thats what you're missing.
EDIT: Clinton took care of business? Is that why OBL is still around. Hell, OBL probably lives with Slick Willie and Hitlery.
2007-07-19 08:11:09 · answer #9 · answered by dave b 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I don't think Osama lives. He could not keep quiet all these years. He had to be in the spot light & threatening us. My bet is he is dead.
2007-07-19 09:22:24 · answer #10 · answered by Ruth 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋