2007-08-01 07:35:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bbbbriggs04 - George Bush Jr.? Who is that? No such president has ever existed.
2007-08-01 07:44:45 · update #1
Jim W - Sorry Jim W, could you ask that again?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/28/bin.laden.connection/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/03/lt.23.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/
Who didn't go after when he was offered on a platter to us?
2007-08-01 07:50:43 · update #2
kenny J - CONGRESS declares war. What part of declaring war on a nation by congress with permission of force by the UN is "illegal"?
2007-08-01 08:56:50 · update #3
We will when we have command of the armed forces...right now George has that power...maybe you should ask him this question?
2007-08-01 07:38:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Because Dems and Libs didn't start an illegal war on false premises. That is owned by the neocons. It wasn't Dems or Libs that wanted OBL "dead or alive" either.
President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive," no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? W: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
2007-08-01 14:58:37 · answer #2 · answered by kenny J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, I heard that the foreign affairas genius named barack Obama stated that, despite what President Musharriff says, he would invade in order to capture/kill Bin Laden. of course, that lightweight doesn't take into account that such action would enflame the Pakistani's into overthrowing Musharriff's government and that Muslim Radicals would then have access to Pakistan's entire NUCLEAR ARSENEL.
That's what happens when amateurs think that they know what they're doing. It ranks right up there with that blithering idiot, Jimmy Earl Carter withdrawing support for the Shah of Iran because he thought a religious leader would be better for that country. You see where that took us, right?
2007-08-01 14:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush pulled the troops away from the fight, in spite of intellegence telling him to press on, so that he could take down Saddam. Now we have a 2 front war when we could have brought those trrops to bear in Afghanistan and Pakistan and fried Osama and his band of thugs bu now. Instead we give them 5 years to reload.
And to think: The guy who's figured this out (Obama) is the one most people are screaming is the least qualified. Go figure.
2007-08-01 14:43:40 · answer #4 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually, it's the National Intelligence Estimate that told us that; the liberals just seem to be the ones more open about believing it, but I'm sure quite a few Republicans do as well.
If you're so sure the NIE is wrong, why don't you volunteer as an intelligence agent into the middle east and tell us what's really happening? Oh--that's what we have the experts for?
Point made.
2007-08-01 14:39:39 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Is this a serious question? Bush is in command of the armed forces. Why doesn't he just go get them?
2007-08-01 14:43:50 · answer #6 · answered by Incognito 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Bush determines where the troops go. He's the Commander in Sheik.
Congress cannot order troops INTO a conflict -- they only have the constitutional authority to order troops OUT of a conflict.
See Article I Section 8 (powers of Congress over the military) and Article II Section 2 (powers of the executive).
2007-08-01 14:38:45 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 4⤋
Doing so might weaken the current Pakistani regime, and the likely replacement woud all-too-likely be pro-Taliban, pro-Al Qaeda, and anti-America. And, Pakistan has nukes.
2007-08-01 14:39:29 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
osama is dead,the americans know it.him being alive justifies the war on terror so they can still hunt him.if he were alive he would be like bush and be on t.v. every day giving speech after speech.why has he never been seen since 9.11.because he is DEAD.
2007-08-01 14:49:00 · answer #9 · answered by John S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are going to have to get him. Because Bush and the Republicans won't.
2007-08-01 14:48:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
bush is in charge, it's his call.
The Pentagon tells us bin laden is in his Pakistan safe haven.
We think the Pentagon is correct in this matter.
so the real question is, why won't bush send the troops after him ?
2007-08-01 14:40:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋